Full text of "Works"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2009 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/workscunn03cunn

THE WORKS

WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D.

PKINCIPAL, AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE,
EDINBURGH.

EDITED BY HIS LITERARY EXECUTORS.

VOL. III.

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.

VOL. II.

THIRD EDITION.

EDINBUKGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET.

MDCCCLXX.

PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,

FOB

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, .... JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, . . . C. SCRIBNER AND CO.

KTheol

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY:

A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINAL DISCUSSIONS

IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH SINCE

THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

BY THE LATE

WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D.,

PRINCIPAL, AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.

EDITED BY HIS LITERARY EXECUTORS.

VOL. IL

THIRD EDITION.

EDINBUEGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET.

MDCCCLXX.

/r/^

-iv

CONTENTS.

CHAPTEE XXI.— Justification, ....
Sec. 1. Popish and Protestant Views,
,, 2. Nature of Justification,
,, 3. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, .
„ 4. Justification by Faith alone, .
,, 5. Office of Faith in Justifying,
„ G. Objections to the Scriptural Doctrine, .
,, 7. The Forgiveness of Post-baptismal Sins,
„ 8. The Merit of Good Works, .
,, 9. Practical Tendency of the Popish Doctrine of

CHAPTER XXII.— The Sacramental Principle, .
Sec. 1. Sacramental Grace, ....
,, 2. Baptismal Regeneration,
,, 3. Popish View of the Lord's Supper,
,, 4. Infant Baptism, .....

PAGE
1

CHAPTER XXIII.— The Socinian Controversy,
Sec. 1. Origin of Socinianism, .
„ 2. 'Socinian Views as to Scripture,
,, 3. Socinian System of Theology,
,, 4. Original and Recent Socinianism, .
,, 5. Distinction of Persons in the Godhead,
,, 6. Trinity and Unity,
„ 7. Evidence for the Divinity of Christ,

10
31
45
56
68
79
90
101
Justification, 111

121
121
133
142
144

155
156
160
168
188
192
203
213

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER

Sec

. 1.

»»

»)

10.

»5

11.

12.

CHAPTER

Sec. 1.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

CHAPTER

Sec

. 1.

XXIV. — Doctrine of the Atonement,

Connection between the Person and "Work of Christ,

Necessity of the Atonement, ....

The Necessity and Nature of the Atonement,

Objections to the Doctrine of Atonement,

Scriptural Evidence for the Atonement,

Socinian View of the Atonement,

Arminian View of the Atonement,

Extent of the Atonement, ....

Evidence as to the Extent of the Atonement,

Extent of Atonement and Gospel Offer,

Extent of Atonement, and its Object, .

Extent of the Atonement, and Calvinistic Principles,

XXV. — The Arminian Controversy,
Arminius and the Arminians,
Synod of Dort,
The Five Points, .
Original Sin,

Universal and Effectual Calling,
Efficacious and Irresistible Grace,
The Decrees of God,

Predestination — State of the Question, .
Predestination, and the Doctrine of the Fall,
Predestination, and the Omniscience of God,
Predestination, and the Sovereignty of God,
Scripture Evidence for Predestination, ,
Objections against Predestination,
Perseverance of Saints, .
Socinianism — Arminianism — Calvinism,

XXVI.— Church Government, .
Presbyterianism, ....
Testimony of the Reformers as to Presbyterianism,

FAOB

237

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XXVL— Continued.

Sec. 3. Popular Election of Office-bearers,
,, 4. Congregationalism, or Independency,

CHAPTER XXVII.— The Erastian Controversy,
Sec. 1. The Civil Magistrate and Religion,
,, 2. Erastus and the Erastians, , . . .
,, 3. Erastianism during the Seventeenth Century,
„ 4. The Free Church of Scotland,

VII

534
545

557
557
569
576
583

INDEX,

589

THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER XXI.

JUSTIFICATION.

We now proceed to the consideration of the important subject of
Justification ; and it will be proper to enter somewhat more fully
into the investigation of this topic than those which we have
hitherto examined. This was the great fundamental distinguish-
ing doctrine of the Reformation, and was regarded by all the
Reformers as of primary and paramount importance. The lead-
ing charge which they adduced against the Church of Rome was,
that she had corrupted and perverted the doctrine of Scripture
upon this subject, in a way that was dangerous to the souls of
men ; and it was mainly by the exposition, enforcement, and
application of the true doctrine of God's word in regard to it, that
they assailed and overturned the leading doctrines and practices
of the Papal system. There is ho subject which possesses more
of intrinsic importance than attaches to this one, and there is
none with respect to which the Reformers were more thoroughly
harmonious in their sentiments. All who believe that the truth
on this subject had been greatly corrupted in the Church of
Rome, and that the doctrine taught by the Reformers respect-
ing it was scriptural and true, must necessarily regard the restora-
tion of sound doctrine upon this point as the most important
service which the Reformers were made instrumental by God in
rendering to the church.

It is above all things important, that men, if they have broken
the law of God, and become liable to the punishment which the
law denounces against transgression, — and that this is indeed the

3 — VOL. II. A

2 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.

state of men by nature is of course now assumed, — should know
whether there be any way in which they may obtain the pardon
and deliverance they need ; and if so, what that way is. And it
is the doctrine of justification as taught in Scripture which alone
affords a satisfactory answer to the question. The subject thus
bears most directly and immediately upon men's relation to God
and their everlasting destiny, and is fraught with unspeakable
practical importance to every human being. It is assumed now
that the condition of men by nature is such in point of fact, that
some change or changes must be effected regarding them in order
to their escaping fearful evil and enjoying permanent happiness ;
and it is in this way that the doctrine of justification is connected
with that of original sin, as the nature and constituent elements
of the disease must determine the nature and qualities of the
remedy that may be fitted to cure or remove it.

There is, indeed, as must be evident even upon the most cur-
sory survey of what Scripture teaches concerning the recovery
and salvation of lost men, a great subject or class of subjects, that
is intermediate between the general state of mankind as fallen and
lost, and the deliverance and restoration of men individually.
And this is the work of Christ as mediator, and the general place
or function assigned to the Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners.
The Scripture represents the whole human race as involved by
the fall in a state of sin and misery. It represents God as looking
with compassion and love upon the lost race of man, and as devising
a method of effecting and securing their salvation. It describes
this divine method of saving sinners as founded on, or rather as
consisting substantially in, this, — that God sent His Son into the
world to assume human nature, and to suffer and die, in order to
procure or purchase for them salvation, and everything which
salvation might involve or require. And hence, in turning our
attention from men's actual condition of sin and misery to the
remedy which has been provided, the first great subject which
naturally presents itself to our contemplation and study is the
person and the work of the Mediator, or the investigation of these
three questions, — viz., first, Who and what was this Saviour of
sinners whom the Scriptures set before us % secondly. What is it
that He has done in order to save men from ruin, and to restore
them to happiness ? and, thirdly. In what way is it that His work,
or what He did and suffered, bears upon the accomplishment of

Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. 3

the great object which it was designed to effect ? Now the first
two of these subjects — i.e., the person and the work of Christ, or
His divinity and atonement — did not form subjects of contro-
versial discussion between the Reformers and the Romanists. The
Church of Rome has always held the proper divinity and the
vicarious atonement of Christ ; and though these great doctrines
have been so corrupted and perverted by her as to be in a great
measure practically neutralized, and though it is very important
to point out this, yet these subjects cannot be said to constitute a
point of the proper controversy between the Church of Rome and
the Protestants, and they were not in point of fact discussed
between the Romanists and the Reformers. In all the contro-
versies between them, the divinity and the vicarious atonement
of Christ were assumed as topics in which there was no material
difference of opinion in formal profession, — doctrines which each
party was entitled to take for granted in arguing with the other.
The subject, indeed, of the divinity and atonement of our Saviour
did not occupy much of the attention of any portion of the church,
as subjects of controversial discussion, during the sixteenth cen-
tury ; for the works of Socinus, who first gave to anti-Trinitarian
views, and to the denial of a vicarious atonement, a plausible and
imposing aspect, did not excite much attention till about the end
of this century, and the controversies which they occasioned took
place chiefly in the succeeding one. I propose, therefore, fol-
lowing the chronological order, to postpone for the present any
account of the discussions which have taken place concerning
the divinity and atonement of Christ.

The sum and substance of the great charge which the Re-
formers adduced against the Church of Rome was, that while she
proclaimed to men with a considerable measure of accuracy who
Christ was, and what it was that He had done for the salvation
of sinners, she yet perverted the gospel of the grace of God, and
endangered the salvation of men's souls, by setting before them
erroneous and unscriptural views of the grounds on which, and
the process through which, the blessings that Christ had procured
for mankind at large were actually bestowed upon men indivi-
dually, and of the way and manner in which men individually
became possessed of them, and attained ultimately to the full and
permanent enjoyment of them. This was the subject that may
be said to have been discussed between the Reformers and the

JUSTIFICATION.

[Chap. XXI.

Komanists under the head of justification, and I need say nothing
more to show its paramount practical importance. There can be
no difference of opinion as to the importance of the general sub-
ject which has been indicated ; but there have been occasionally
discussions in more modern times upon the question whether the
errors of the Church of Rome upon this subject are so important
and dangerous as they are often represented to be, and whether
they were of sufficient magnitude to warrant the views entertained
by the Reformers upon this subject, and the course of practical
procedure which they based upon these views. When more lax
and unsound views of doctrine began to prevail in the Protestant
churches, some of their divines lost their sense of the magnitude
of the Romish errors upon the subject of justification, and began
to make admissions, that the differences between them and the
Romanists upon this point were not so vital as the Reformers had
supposed them to be ; and the Romanists, ever on the watch to
take advantage of anything that seems fitted to promote the
interests of their church, were not slow to avail themselves of
these concessions.*

There are two different and opposite lines of policy which
Romish controversialists have pursued upon this subject, accord-
ing as seemed to be most expedient for their interests at the
time. Sometimes they have represented the doctrine of the Re-
formers upon the subject of justification as something hideous
and monstrous, — as overturning the foundations of all morality,
and fitted only to produce^ universal wickedness and profligacy ;
and at other times they have affected a willingness to listen to the
grounds on which Protestants defend themselves from this charge,
to admit that these grounds are not altogether destitute of weight,
and that, consequently, there is not so great a difference between
their doctrine in substance and that of the Church of Rome.
They then enlarge upon the important influence which the
alleged errors of the Church of Rome on the subject of justifica-

* Archbishop Wake, in his Exposi-
tion of the Doctrine of the Church of
England, in reply to Bossuet's Expo-
sition of the Catholic Church, gives
up our whole controversy with the
Church of Rome on this subject ; and
to give a specimen of modem High

Churchmen, Perceval, in his Roman
Schism Illustrated (p. 365), says that
" ground for condemnation of the
Church of Rome, as touching the main
positions of this doctrine, is not to be
found in the decrees of the Council of
Trent."

Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. 5

tion had in producing the Reformation, — quote some of the
passages which show the paramount importance which tlie first
Reformers attached to this subject, — and proceed to draw the in-
ference that the Reformation was founded upon misrepresentation
and cahimny, since it appears, and has been admitted even by
learned Protestants, that the errors of the Church of Rome, even
if they were to admit for the sake of argument that she had erred,
are not nearly so important as the Reformers had represented
them to be.*

It is only to this second line of policy, which represents the
difference on the subject of justification as comparatively insigni-
ficant, and makes use, for this purpose, of some concessions of
Protestant writers, that we mean at present to advert. In follow-
ing out this line of policy, Popish controversialists usually employ
an artifice which I had formerly occasion to expose, — viz., taking
the statements of the Reformers made in the earlier period of
their labours, and directed against the general strain of the public
teaching, oral and written, that then generally obtained in the
Church of Rome, and comparing them with the cunning and
cautious decrees of the Council of Trent upon the subject of
justification. We are willing to confine our charge against the
Church of Rome, as such, at least so far as the sixteenth cen-
tury is concerned, to what we can prove to be sanctioned by the
Council of Trent ; and indeed there was not in existence, at the
commencement of the Reformation, anything that could be said
to be a formal deliverance upon the subject of justification to
which the Church of Rome could be proved to be officially com-
mitted. But we must expose the injustice done to the Reformers,
when their statements, expressly and avowedly directed against
the teaching then generally prevalent in the Church of Rome,
are represented, as they often are, by modern Popish contro-
versialists— and Moehler, in his Symbolism, with all his preten- .
sions to candour and fairness, lays himself open to this charge —
as directed against the decrees of the Council of Trent, which
were prepared with much care and caution after the subject had
been fully discussed, and in the preparation of which no small

* Jurieu, in his Prejurjez Legitimes between the course taken by Nicole

contre le Papisme, Part ii. c. xxv. pp
307-10, points out the inconsistency

and that taken by Arnauld upon this
subject.

6 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

skill and ingenuity were employed to evade the force of the argu-
ments of the Eeformers, and to conceal or gloss over what they
had most successfully exposed. I had occasion formerly to quote
or refer to an extract from Melancthon, written in 1536, when
he was invited by Francis i. into France, in which he states the
great improvement which had taken place, and the much nearer
approach which had been exhibited to Protestant principles, in
tlie statements then commonly made by Romanists upon justifica-
tion and other subjects, as compared with those which prevailed
when Luther began his work ; and though the application which
Melancthon made of this consideration was far from being credi-
table to his firmness or his sagacity, yet it was undoubtedly true,
to a large extent, as a statement of a fact.

I may mention one striking and important instance in which
the Council of Trent may be said to have modified and softened
the erroneous doctrine which was previously prevalent in the
Church of Rome upon this subject. It was the general doctrine
of the schoolmen, — it was universally taught in the Church of
Rome at the commencement of the Reformation, — it was explicitly
maintained by most of the Popish controversialists who, previously
to the Council of Trent, came forward to oppose the Reformers,
that men in their natural state, before they were justified and re-
generated, could, and must, do certain good things by which they
merited or deserved the grace of forgiveness and regeneration, —
not indeed with the merit of condignity, — for that true and
proper merit, in the strictest sense, was reserved for the good
deeds of men already justified, — but with what was called the merit
of congruity, — a distinction too subtle to be generally and popularly
apprehended. Now, of this merit of congruity — so prominent
and important a feature of the Romish theology before and at the
commencement of the Reformation, and so strenuously assailed
by Luther— the Council of Trent has taken no direct notice
whatever. The substance, indeed, of the error may be said to
be virtually retained in the decisions of the council upon the sub-
ject of what it calls dispositives or preparatives for justification ;
but the error cannot be said to be very clearly or directly sanc-
tioned ; and the council has made a general declaration, that *
" none of those things which precede justification, whether faith

* Sess. vi. c. viii.

Chap. XXT.] JUSTIFICATION. 7

or works, merit the grace of justification itself," — a declaration,
however, it should be observed, which has not prevented most
subsequent Romish writers from reviving the old doctrine of
meritum de congruo before justification. If it be fair, on the one
hand, that the Church of Rome, as such, should be judged by the
decisions of the Council of Trent, — at least until it be shown that
some other decision has been given by which the church, as such,
was bound, as by the bull Unigenitus, — it is equally fair that the
Reformers, who wrote before the council, should be judged, as to
the correctness of their representations, by the doctrine which
generally obtained in the Church of Rome at the time when these
representations were made. But while this consideration should
be remembered, in order that we may do justice to the Refonners,
and guard against the influence of an artifice which Popish con-
troversialists in modern times often employ in order to excite a
prejudice against them, yet it is admitted that the question as to
what is the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject of
justification must be determined chiefly by an examination of the
decisions of the Council of Trent ; and we hope to be able to
show that, notwithstanding all the caution and skill employed in
framing its decrees, they contain a large amount of anti-scriptural
error, and that they misrepresent and pervert the method of sal-
vation in a way which, when viewed in connection luith the national
tendencies of men, is fitted to exert a most injurious influence
upon the salvation of men's souls. Turretine,* in asserting the
importance of the differences between Protestants and the Church
of Rome on the subject of justification, and adverting also to the
attempts which have been made by some Protestant writers to
represent these differences as unimportant, has the following
statement : " Licet vero nonnulli ex Pontificiis cordatioribus vi
veritatis victi sanius casteris de hoc articulo senserint et locuti
sint. Nee desint etiam ex Nostris, qui studio minuendarum
Controversiarum ducti, censeant circa ilium non tantam esse
dissidii materiam, et non paucas hie esse logomachias. Certum
tamen est non verbales, sed reales multas, et magni momenti
controversias nobis cum Pontificiis adhuc intercedere in hoc
argumento, ut ex sequentibus fiet manifestum."

Perhaps the fullest and most elaborate attempt made by any

* Loc. xvi. Qusest. i. sec. ii.

8 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

Protestant writer of eminence to show that the difference between
Protestants and Romanists on the subject of justification is not
of very great importance, is to be found in the Theses Theologiccv
of Le Blanc, often called the Theses Sedanenses, because their
author was Professor of Theology in the French Protestant
University of Sedan, at a period, however, shortly before the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes, when the French Protestant
Church in general had very considerably declined from the doc-
trinal orthodoxy of the Reformation, though it still contained
some very able opponents of Popery, men qualified to contend
with Bossuet, Arnauld, and Nicole. Le Blanc's Theses is a work
of much ingenuity and erudition ; and it contains much matter
that is fitted to be useful in the history of theology, though it
should be read with much caution, as it exhibits a strong ten-
dency on the part of its author to explain away, and to make
light of, differences in doctrinal matters, which are of no small
importance in the scheme of divine truth. The course of argu-
ment adopted by Le Blanc, in order to prove that there is no
very material difference between Protestants and Romanists on
this point, is not of a very fair or satisfactory kind, and gives us
much more the impression of a man who had laid it down as a
sort of task to himself just to exert all his ingenuity, and to em-
ploy all his erudition, in explaining away the apparent differences
among contending parties, than of one who was candidly and
impartially seeking after the truth. It consists not so much in
comparing the declarations of the Reformed confessions with
those of the Council of Trent, as in collecting together all the
best or most Protestant passages he could find in any Popish
authors, and all the worst or most Popish passages he could find
in any Protestant authors ; and then in showing that there was
really no very great difference between them. The unfairness of
this mode of argument is too obvious to need to be dwelt upon.
It is easy to show that there have been Popish writers whose views
upon religious subjects were sounder than those of their church,
and Protestant writers whose views were less sound than those of
the Reformers and their genuine followers. But the only im-
portant questions are : What is the doctrine of the Church of
Rome upon this subject? in what respects does it differ from
that taught by the Reformers, and embodied in the confessions
of Protestant churches ? in what way does the word of God

Chap. XXI.]

JUSTIFICATION.

decide upon these differences? what is their real value or im-
portance ? and how does it bear upon the general scheme of
Christian truth, and upon the spiritual welfare of men ? *

The more general considerations on which Le Blanc and
Grotius, and other men who have laboured to show that there is
no very material difference between Protestants and the Church
of Eome on the subject of justification, have mainly proceeded,
are these, — that the Church of Rome ascribes the justification of
sinners to the grace of God and to the merits of Christ, and
denies merit to men themselves in the matter. Now it is true
that the Council of Trent has made general statements to this
effect ; but, notwithstanding all this, it is quite possible to show
that their general declarations upon these points are virtually con-
tradicted or neutralized — practically at least, and sometimes even
theoretically — by their more specific statements upon some of the
topics involved in the detailed exposition of the subject ; and that
thus it can be proved that they do not really ascribe the justifi-
cation of sinners wholly to the grace of God and to the work
of Christ, — that they do not wholly exclude human merit, but
ascribe to men themselves, and to their own powers, a real share
in the work of their own salvation ; and that while this can be
proved to be true of their doctrine as it stands theoretically, their
scheme, as a whole, is also, moreover, so constructed as to be
fitted, when viewed in connection with the natural tendencies of
the human heart, to foster presumption and self-confidence, to
throw obstacles in the way of men's submitting themselves to the
divine method of justification, and to frustrate the great . end
which the gospel scheme of salvation was, in all its parts, ex-
pressly designed and intended to accomplish, — viz., that, as our
Confession of Faith says,t " both the exact justice and the rich
grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners."

* It is amusiug and instructiye to
observe the use to which Nicole turns
the labours of Le Blanc in this matter,
in his Prejucjes Leyiiimes contre les
Calvinistes, tome i. pp. 269, 274-6.
Animadversions on Le Blanc in this
matter are to be found in AYitsius, De
(Econ. Feed. lib. iii. c. viii. sees,
xhx.-lv., and De Moor, Comment, in
Marck. Compend. tom. iv. pp. 732-3,
753 ; Owen, vol. xi. pp. 84-5, 161

(or, in original edition, pp. 87, 179),
For an exposure of other attempts
to represent the differences between
Protestants and Romanists on the sub-
ject of justification as unimportant,
see the controversy between Grotius
and Andrew Rivet. — Rivet's Vin-
dicise Evangelicse, and Heidegger's
Dissertationes, tom. i. Dissertatio xi.
p. 290.

t West. Conf. c. xi. sec. 3.

10 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

Sec, 1. — Popish and Protestant Vieios.

In dealing with the subject of justification, we must first of
all attempt to form a clear and correct apprehension of what is
the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this topic, as opposed
to that which the Reformers deduce from the word of God.
Justification, it is admitted on both sides, is descriptive generally
of the change or changes, in whole or in part, that must take
place in respect of men individually, in order to their escaping
from the evils of their natural condition, and attaining to happi-
ness and heaven. The nature of the change or changes necessary
must depend upon the actual features of men's natural condition,
the evils from which they must be delivered. And the way and
manner in which they are brought about must be somewhat re-
gulated by the natural powers or capacities of men themselves to
procure or effect them, or to assist in procuring or effecting them.
It is admitted also, that the two leading features of men's natural
condition, which render salvation necessary, and must in some
measure determine its character, are guilt and depravity, — or
liability to punishment because of transgression of God's law,
and a tendency or inclination, more or less powerful and pervad-
ing, to violate its requirements and prohibitions. The corre-
sponding changes, called graces, because admitted to be in some
sense God's gifts, and called the blessings or benefits of redemp-
tion, because admitted to be in some sense procured for men by
what Christ has done for them, are an alteration upon men's
state or condition in relation to God and His law, whereby their
guilt is cancelled, their sins are pardoned, and they are brought
into a state of acceptance and favour ; and a change upon their
actual moral character, whereby the tendency to sin is mortified
and subdued, and a state of heart and motive more accordant
with what God's law requires is produced. Thus far, and when
these general terms are employed, there is no material difference
of opinion ; though the second change — 'that upon men's moral
character — is usually called by Protestants the regeneration or
renovation of man's moral nature, and by Papists the infusion
of righteousness or justice, — righteousness or justice denoting, in
their sense of it, actual conformity to what God requires, either
in point of internal character (justitia habitualis) or of outward
actions (justitia actualis).

Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. H

It is admitted, further, that these changes upon men's state
and character, necessary to their salvation and ultimate happiness,
are to be traced, in general, to the grace or kindness of God, who
confers or produces them, and to the work of Christ, who in some
way has procured or purchased them for men. And the sum
and substance of all that the Reformers demanded, ds necessary
to the pure preaching of the gospel, — the scriptural exposition of
the leading principles of the method of salvation, — was, that the
conceded ascription of these changes to the grace of God and
the work of Christ should be literally and honestly maintained,
according to the proper import of the words, and should be fully
carried out, in the more detailed exposition of the subject, without
any other principles or elements being introduced into it which
might virtually and practically, if not formally and theoretically,
involve a denial or modification of them ; while the great charge
which they adduced against the Church of Rome was, that in
their fuller and more minute exposition of the way and manner
in which these changes were effected upon men individually, they
did introduce principles or elements which, more or less directly,
deprived the grace of God and the work of Christ of the place
and influence which the sacred Scriptures assigned to them.

As the change upon men's state and condition from guilt and
condemnation to pardon and acceptance is, substantially, a change
in the aspect in which God regards them, or rather in the way in
which He resolves thenceforth to deal with them, and to treat
them, it must, from the nature of the case, be an act of God, and
it must be wholly God's act, — an act in producing or effecting
which men themselves cannot be directly parties ; and the only
way in which they can in any measure contribute to bring it
about, is by their meriting it, or doing something to deserve it, at
God's hand, and thereby inducing Him to effect the change or to
perform the act. It was as precluding the possibility of this, that
the Reformers attached so much importance to the doctrine which
we formerly had occasion to explain and illustrate, — viz., that all
the actions of men previous to regeneration are only and wholly
sinful; and it was, of course, in order to leave room for men in
some sense meriting gifts from God, or deserving for themselves
the blessings which Christ procured for mankind, that the Coun-
cil of Trent anathematized it.

The other great change is an actual effect wrought upon men

12 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

themselves, of which they are directly the subjects, and in produc-
ing or effecting which there is nothing in the nature of the case,
though there may be in the actual character and capacities of men,
to prevent them from taking a part. The Protestant doctrine of
men's natural inability to will anything spiritually good, which has
been illusti'Uted in connection with the doctrine of original sin, of
course precludes them from doing anything that can really im-
prove their moral character in God's sight, until this inability be
taken away by an external and superior power ; while the doctrine
of the Council of Trent about man's freedom or power to will and
do good remaining to some extent notwithstanding the fall, which
forms part of their decree on the subject of justification, paves the
• way, and was no doubt so intended, for ascribing to men them-
selves some real efficiency in the renovation of their moral natures.
From the view taken by the Church of Rome of the nature
and import of justification, the whole subject of the way and man-
ner in which both these changes are effected, in or upon men in-
dividually, was often discussed in the sixteenth century under this
one head ; though one of the first objects to which the Eeformers
usually addressed themselves in discussing it, was to ascertain
and to bring out what, according to Scripture usage, justification
really is, and what it comprehends. The decree of the fathers
of Trent upon this important subject (session vi.), comprehended
in sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons, is characterized by
vagueness and verbiage, confusion, obscurity, and unfairness.
It is not very easy on several points to make out clearly and
distinctly what were the precise doctrines which they wished to
maintain and condemn. Some months were spent by the Coun-
cil in consultations and intrigues about the formation of their
decree upon this subject. And yet, notwithstanding all their
pains, — perhaps we should rather say, because of them, — they
have not brought out a very distinct and intelligible view of
what they meant to teach upon some of its departments.

The vagueness, obscurity, and confusion of the decree of the
Council of Ti'ent upon this subject, contrast strikingly with the
clearness and simplicity that obtain in the writings of the Refor-
mers and the confessions of the Reformed churches regarding
it. There w^ere not wanting two or three rash and incautious
expressions of Luther's upon this as upon other subjects, of
which, by a policy I formerly had occasion to expose, the Couu-

Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 13

cil did not scruple to take an unfair advantage, by introducing
some of them into their canons, in a way fitted to excite an
unwarrantable prejudice against the doctrine of the Reformers.
And it is true that Luther and Melancthon, in some of their
earlier works, did seem to confine their statements, when treat-
ing of this subject, somewhat too exclusively to the act of faith
by which men are justified, without giving sufficient prominence
to the object of faith, or that which faith apprehends or lays
hold of, and which is the ground or basis of God's act in jus-
tifying,— viz., the righteousness of Christ. But though their
views upon this subject became moi-e clear and enlarged, yet
they held in substance from the beginning, and brought out at
length, and long before the Council of Trent, most fully and
clearly the great doctrine of the Reformation, — viz., that justifi-
cation in Scripture is properly descriptive only of a change upon
men's legal state and condition, and not on their moral character,
though a radical change of character invariably accompanies it ;
that it is a change from a state of guilt and condemnation to a
state of forgiveness and acceptance ; and that sinners are justified,
or become the objects of this change, solely by a gratuitous act of
God, but founded only upon the righteousness of Christ (not on
any righteousness of their own), — a righteousness imputed to
them, and thus made theirs, not on account of anything they do
or can do to merit or procure it, but through the instrumentality
of faith alone, by which they apprehend or lay hold of what has
been provided for them, and is freely offered to them.

Let us now attempt to bring out plainly and distinctly the
doctrine which the Council of Trent laid down in opposition to
these scriptural doctrines of the Reformers. The first important
question is what justification is, or what the word justification
means ; and upon this point it must be admitted that the doctrine
of the Council of Trent is sufficiently explicit. It defines* justi-
fication to be " translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius
primi Adse, in statum gratise et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secun-
dum Adam Jesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum," — words which,
in their fair and natural import, may be held to include under
justification the whole of the change that is needful to be effected
in men in order to their salvation, as comprehending their de-

* Sess. vi. G. iv.

14 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

liverance both from guilt and depravity. But that this is the
meaning which they attached to the word justification — that they
regarded all this as comprehended under it — is put beyond all
doubt, by what they say in the seventh chapter, where they ex-
pressly define justification to be, " non sola peccatorum remissio,
sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam
susceptionem gratijB et donorum." Justification, then, according
to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, includes or comprehends
not only the remission of sin, or deliverance from guilt, but also
the sanctification or renovation of man's moral nature, or deliver-
ance from depravity. In short, they comprehend under the one
name or head of justification, what Protestants — following, as they
believe, the guidance of Scripture — have always divided into the
two heads of justification and regeneration, or justification and
sanctification, when the word sanctification is used in its widest
sense, as descriptive of the whole process, originating in regenera-
tion, by which depraved men are restored to a conformity to God's
moral image. Now the discussion upon this point turns wholly
upon this question, What is the sense in which the word justifica-
tion and its cognates are used in Scripture ? And this is mani-
festly a question of fundamental importance, in the investigation
of this whole subject, inasmuch as, from the nature of the case,
its decision must exert a most important influence upon the whole
of men's views regarding it. At present, however, I confine
myself to a mere statement of opinions, without entering into
any examination of their truth, as I think it better, in the first
instance, to bring out fully at once what the whole doctrine of
the Church of Rome upon this subject, as contrasted with that of
the Reformers, really is.

It may be proper, however, before leaving this topic, to ad-
vert to a misrepresentation that has been often given of the views
of the Reformers, and especially of Calvin, upon this particular
point. When Protestant divines began, in the seventeenth century,
to corrupt the scriptural doctrine of justification, and to deviate
from the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Reformation, they thought it
of importance to show that justification meant merely the remis-
sion or forgiveness of sin, or guilt, to the exclusion of, or without
comprehending, what is usually called the acceptance of men's
persons, or their positive admission into God's favour, — or their
receiving from God, not only the pardon of their sins, or immu-

Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 15

nity from punishment, but also a right or title to heaven and
eternal life. And in support of this view, these men appealed to
the authority of the Reformers, and especially of Calvin. Now
it is quite true that Calvin has asserted again and again that jus-
tification comprehends only, or consists in, the remission or for-
giveness of sin or guilt. But I have no doubt that a careful and
deliberate examination of all that Calvin has written upon this
point * will fully establish these two positions, — first, that when
Calvin asserted that justification consisted only in the remission
of sin, he meant this simply as a denial of the Popish doctrine,
that it is not only the remission of sin, but also the sanctification
or renovation of the inner man, — this being the main, and
indeed the only, error upon the point which he was called upon
formally to oppose ; and, secondly, that Calvin has at least as
frequently and as explicitly described justification as comprehend-
ing not only remission of sin in the strict and literal sense, but
also positive acceptance or admission into the enjoyment of God's
favour, — " gratuita Dei acceptio," as he often calls it, — including
the whole of the change effected upon men's state or legal condi-
tion in God's sight, as distinguished from the change effected
upon their character. This is one of the numerous instances,
constantly occurring, that illustrate how unfair it is to adduce
the authority of eminent writers on disputed questions which had
never really been presented to them, — which they had never
entertained or decided ; and how necessary it often is, in order to
forming a correct estimate of some particular statements of an
author, to examine with care and deliberation all that he has
•written upon the subject to which they refer, and also to be intel-
ligently acquainted with the w^y and manner in which the whole
subject was discussed at the time on both sides.

When the Council of Trent defined regeneration to be a
component part or a constituent element of Justification, along
with pardon or forgiveness, they were probably induced to do so,
partly because they could appeal to some of the fathers, and even
to Augustine, in support of this use of the word, but also because
their real object or intention was to make this sanctification, or

* Bishop O'Brien's Attempt to Ex- I 346-7 (Note M, 2d ed. 1862 (Eds.).
plai7i and Estahlish the Doctrine of \ Bellarmine, De Jtistljicatione, lib. ii.
Justification by Faith only, in Ten c. i., admits this in regard to Calvin.
Sermons, London 1833 5 Note 12, pp. |

16 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

infused or inherent righteousness, as Romanists commonly call
it, the cause or ground of the forgiveness of sin. A change of
legal state, and a change of moral character, are things so mani-
festly different in their own nature, that they could scarcely avoid
attempting some separate explanation of them, and of the way in
which they were conferred or effected, even though they might
regard them as both comprehended under the name justification.
The question, Upon what ground or consideration does God for-
give men's sins ? or, in other words, To what is it that He has
regard, when, with respect to any individual, He passes an act
of forgiveness ? — this question, viewed by itself as a distinct in-
dependent topic, is obviously one which requires and demands an
answer, whether the answer to it may exhaust the exposition of
the subject of justification with reference to its cause or not.
The Reformers, after proving from the word of God that justi-
fication, according to Scripture usage, described only a change of
state, and not a change of character, strenuously demanded that
this question, as to the cause or ground of forgiveness, or as to
what it was to which God had respect, when, in the case of any
individual, He cancelled his guilt, and admitted him into the
enjoyment of His favour and friendship, should be distinctly
and explicitly answered ; and, accordingly, Protestant divines in
general, when they are discussing the subject of justification,
understood in the limited scriptural sense of the word, and ex-
plaining the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject,
make it their object to extract from the decree of the Council of
Trent any materials that bear directly upon this point.

The Council, indeed, have not presented this subject nakedly
and distinctly, as in fairness they ought to have done, but have
made use of their general definition of justification, as compre-
hending also regeneration, for involving the whole subject in a
considerable measure of obscurity. What may be fairly deduced
from their statements as to the cause or ground of forgiveness
or pardon, viewed as a distinct topic by itself, is this : After de-
fining justification to be not only the remission of sins, but also
the sanctification and renovation of the inner man, they proceed
to explain the causes of this justification ; and in doing so, they
make a very liberal use of scholastic phrases and distinctions.
The final cause, they say, is the glory of God and Christ, and
eternal life ; the eflBcient cause is God (Deus misericors) exercis-

Sec. T.] popish AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 17

ing compassion ; the meritorious cause is Jesus Christ, who by His
sufferings and death merited justification for us, and satisfied the
Father in our room ; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of
baptism ; and " the only formal cause is the righteousness (justitia)
of God, not that by which He Himself is righteous, but that l)y
which He makes us righteous, by which we, receiving it from
Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not only
reckoned or reputed, but are called and are truly righteous." In
this last statement of the Council about the formal cause of justi-
fication being only an actual righteousness which God gives us or
infuses into us, and which thereby comes to be inherent in us,
it would seem as if they had tacitly intended to describe, as they
ought to have done openly and plainly, rather the formal cause
or ground of forgiveness, or of the change of state, than of justi-
fication in their own wide sense of it ; for it is evident that the
righteousness, or actual personal conformity of character to God's
law, which He bestows upon men by His Spirit, cannot be, as
they assert it is, the formal cause of that sanctificatlon or renova-
tion of the inner man which they make a part of justification, and
to which, therefore, everything that is set forth as a cause of jus-
tification must be causally applicable. This inherent righteous-
ness, which God bestows upon men or infuses into them, might be
said to be Identical with the sanctlfication of the inner man, or, with
more strict exactness, might be said to be an effect, or result, or con-
sequence of it, but it cannot in any proper sense be a cause of it.
This personal righteousness bestowed by God might indeed be
said to be the formal cause of forgiveness^ if It were intended to
convey the idea that it is the ground or basis on which God's
act in forgiving rests, or that to which He has a regard or respect
when He cancels a man's guilt, and admits him to the enjoyment
of His favour. And this is indeed the meaning which accords
best with the general strain of the council's statements. It is not
necessarily inconsistent, in every sense, with their making Christ
and His work the meritorious cause of justification. In making-
Christ and His work the meritorious cause of justification, they,
of course, in accordance with their definition of justification, make
this the meritorious cause, equally and alike of forgiveness and
of renovation, the two parts of which justification consists, or as
Bellarmlne expresses it, " mortem Christi, quse pretium fult re-
demptlonis, non soliim causam fulsse remlssionis peccatorum, sed
3 — VOL. II. B

18 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

etiam internge renovationis."* And this Protestants regard as
in itself a great general scriptural truth, though they believe that
it errs both by excess and defect, lohen it is put forth as a part
of the teaching of Scripture on the subject of justification. It errs by
excess, in comprehending renovation as well as forgiveness under
the head of justification ; and it errs by defect, in representing
the work or righteousness of Christ as standing in no other or
closer relation to forgiveness or acceptance than as being merely
its meritorious cause. It is only with this second error that we
have at present to do. The council not only makes the work or
righteousness of Christ equally and alike the meritorious cause of
forgiveness and renovation, but it expressly denies (can. x.) that
men are formally justified by Christ's righteousness, or, in other
words, that Christ's righteousness is the formal cause of our justi-
fication ; and it expressly asserts, as we have seen, that the only
formal cause of our justification is the personal righteousness
which God bestows or infuses into men. Bellarmine carefully
guards against the inference, that because the eleventh canon
condemns the doctrine that we are justified by the righteousness
of Christ alone, it admitted by implication that we are justified
formally by it at all.f

Now it is plainly impossible to make one consistent and har-
monious doctrine out of these various positions, affirmative and
negative, which the council has laid down, except upon the assump-
tion that the council really meant to teach that there is no direct
and immediate connection between the work or righteousness of
Christ and the forgiveness of the sins of men individually ; and
to represent Christ as merely meriting the communication to men
of personal righteousness, and thereby, or through the medium of
this personal righteousness which He merited for them, indirectly
or remotely meriting the forgiveness of sin, of which this personal
righteousness, infused and inherent, as they describe it, is the
direct and immediate cause. That the Council of Trent really
intended to teach this doctrine, though it is brought out somewhat
obscurely, and though we are obliged to infer it from a careful
comparison of its different statements upon the subject, is clearly
shown by Chemnitius in his valuable work, Examen Concilii Tri-
dentinij not only from an examination of the decrees themselves,

* De Justijicationc, lib. ii. cap. vi. f Hid. lib. ii. cap. ii.

Sec. I.]

POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS.

but from the statements of Andradius, an eminent Popish divine,
who was present at the council, and afterwards pubUshed a work
in defence of its decisions.* That this is the doctrine which
the council intended to teach, and that it is in consequence the
ordinary recognised doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the
subject, is confirmed, or rather established, by the consideration
that the generality of Romish writers are accustomed, without
any doubt or hesitation, to give this as the state of the question be-
tween them and Protestants upon this topic, — viz.. Whether the
cause of our justification be a righteousness inherent in us or not ?
or this. Whether the cause of our justification be a righteousness
infused into and inherent in us ; or an external righteousness —
that is, the righteousness of Christ — imputed to us ? And that
in discussing this question, so stated^ they just labour to produce
evidence from Scripture that that to which God has an immediate
respect or regard in forgiving any man's sins, and admitting him
to the enjoyment of His favour, is, not the righteousness of Christ,
but an infused and inherent personal righteousness. As this is a
point of some importance in order to a right apprehension of the
doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, it may be
proper to produce some evidence of this position.

Bellarmine says,t " Status totius controversiae revocari potest
ad banc simplicem quoestionem, sitne formalis causa absolutae
justificationis, justitia in nobis inhaerens, an non?" and then he
proceeds to show that the determination of this question in the
affirmative at once overturns all the leading errors of the Refor-
mers upon the whole subject of the causes and grounds of justifi-
cation : " Omnes refutantur, si probetur justitia inhajrens, qua3
absolute et simpliciter justificet ;" and more particularly, " Si
justitia inhgerens est formalis causa absolutge justificationis, non
igitur requiritur imputatio justitiaa Christi."

In like manner, Dens, in his Theologia Moralis, says, J
" Probo contra hgereticos : quod justificatio formaliter fiat per in-
fusionem gratise habitualis inhaBrentis animse, non vero per justi-
tiam Christi nobis extrinsec^ imputatam." Perrone also, in his
Proilectiones Theological, § lays down this proposition, as taught

* Chemnitii Exam. Con. Trid. p.
144, ed. 1609 ; see also Bp. Dave-
nant, l^nelectiones de Justitia Ilahi-
tuali et Actuali, c. xxvii.

t De Justijicatione, lib. ii. cap. ii.
X Dens' Theol. Mor. torn. ii. p. 448.
§ Perrone, Pndec. Theol. torn. i.
col. l;398.

20 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

by tlie Council of Trent, and as being therefore de Jide^ or an
essential binding article of faith : " Impii formaliter non justifi-
cantur vel sola iraputatione justitise Christi vel sola peccatorum
remissione ; sed justificantur per gratiam et caritatem, quae in
cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffunditur, atque illis
inhseret." And, in answer to the Scripture statements adduced
to prove that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, he
admits that we are justified by it as the meritorious cause ; but
denies that we are justified by it as the formal cause.

The most eminent Protestant divines have been quite willing
to admit that these statements of Popish writers give a fair ac-
count of the state of the question, and have had no hesitation in
undertaking the defence of the positions which this view of the
state of the question assigned to them. They have not, indeed,
usually attached much weight in this matter to the scholastic
distinctions about the different kinds of causes ; because, as
Turretine says,* " in the matter of justification before God, the
formal cause cannot be distinguished from the meritorious cause,
since the formal cause, in this respect, is nothing else than that,
at the sight of which, or from a regard to which, God frees us
from condemnation, and accepts us to eternal life." On these
grounds, Protestant writers have held themselves fully warranted
in imputing to the Church of Rome the maintenance of this
position, — viz., that that to which God has directly and imme-
diately a respect or regard, in pardoning a man's sins, and ad-
mitting him into the enjoyment of His favour, is a personal
righteousness infused into that man, and inherent in him ; while
they have undertaken for themselves to establish from Scripture
the negative of this position, and to show that that which is the
proper ground or basis of God's act in forgiving or accepting any
man — that to which alone He has a respect or regard when He
justifies him — is the righteousness of Christ imputed to him.

It may be proper to mention that, among orthodox Protestant
divines who have agreed harmoniously in the whole substance
of the doctrine of justification, there may be noticed some differ-
ences in point of phraseology on some of the topics to which we
have referred, and especially with respect to the causes of justi-
fication. These differences of phraseology are not of much im-

* Loc. xvi. Qutest. ii. sec. v.

Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. . 21

portance, and do not give much trouble in an investigation of
this subject. Calvin sometimes spoke of justification as consist-
ing in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ's right-
eousness.* But, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness in
this connection, he seems to have meant nothing more than ac-
ceptance or positive admission into the enjoyment of God's favour,
— the bestowal of a right or title to eternal life, as distinguished
from, and going beyond, mere pardon. In any other sense —
and indeed in the strict and proper sense, of the expression —
the statement is inaccurate ; for the imputation of Christ's right-
eousness does not stand on the same level or platform as the
remission of sins, and of course cannot go to constitute, along
with it, one thing designated by the one term, — justification, — as
is the case with acceptance or admission into God's favour. The
imputation of Christ's righteousness, correctly understood, is to
be regarded as in the order of nature preceding both remission and
acceptance, and as being the ground or basis, or the meritorious
impulsive or formal cause, of them ; or that to which God has
respect when in any instance He pardons and accepts.!

Again, some orthodox divines have thought that the most
accurate mode of speaking upon the subject, is to say that the
formal cause of our justification is Christ's righteousness imputed ;
others, that it is the imputation of Christ's righteousness ; and a
third party, among whom is Dr. Owen, in his great work on Jus-
tification,! think that there is no formal cause of justification,
according to the strict scholastic meaning of the expression ; while
all orthodox divines concur in maintaining against the Church
of Rome, that, to adopt Dr. Owen's words, the righteousness of
Christ "is that whereby, and wherewith, a believing siimer is
justified before God ; or whereon he is accepted with God, hath
his sins pardoned, is received into grace and favour, and hath a
title given him unto the heavenly inheritance." §

Having thus brought out the doctrine of the Church of Rome
on the subject of the meaning, nature, and ground of justification,

* A similar mode of speaking was
adopted by some Lutheran divines.
Vide Buddseus, Instit. Theol. Dogm.
lib. iv. c. iv. sec. vi.

t Turret., Loc. xvi. Quaest. iv.

t Orme's edition of Owen, vol. xi.

§ For a full exposition of the dif-
ferences of opinion and statement on
the causes of justification, vide de
Moor, tom. iv. pp. 682-90, and John
Goodwin's Imputatio Fidei, P. ii. c.
iv. ; Davenant, De Just. ; Appendix

pp. 257-292. : to Newman on Justification.

22 . JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

we proceed now to explain her doctrine as to its means and re-
sults. And first, with respect to the means of justification. The
Reformers were unanimous and decided in maintaining the doc-
trine that faith alone justified, — that men were justified by faith
only ; and this gave rise to a great deal of discussion between
them and the Romanists,' — discussions bearing not only upon the
import and evidence of this general position, but likewise upon
the meaning and nature of justifying faith, and upon the way
and manner in which faith justifies, or in which it acts or operates
in the matter of justification. By the position that faith alone
justifies, the Reformers meant in general that faith was the only
tiling in a man himself, to the exclusion of all personal righteous-
ness, habitual or actual, of all other Christian graces, and of all
good works, to which his forgiveness and acceptance with God are
attributed or ascribed in Scripture, — the only thing in himself
which is represented in God's word as exerting anything like
causality or efficiency in his obtaining justification. They did not
hold that faith was the only thing which invariably accompanies
justification, or even that it was the only thing required of men in
order to their being justified ; for they admitted that repentance
was necessary to forgiveness, in accordance with the doctrine of
our standards, that, " to escape the wrath and curse of God due
to us for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto life," as well
as " faith in Jesus Christ." * But as repentance is never said in
Scripture to justify, as men are never said to be justified by or
through repentance, or by or through anything existing in them-
selves, except faith, the Reformers maintained that faith stood
in a certain relation to justification, such as was held by no other
Quality or feature in men's character or conduct, — that it justified
them, — nothing else about them did ; that men were justified by
faith, and could not be said to be justified by anything else exist-
ing in themselves, whatever might be its nature or its source.

They did not teach that this faith which alone justified was
ever alone, or unaccompanied with other graces ; but, on the con-
trary, they maintain that, to adopt -the words of our Confession,!
" it is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no
dead faith, but worketh by love." Calvin, in explaining this

* In the Larger Catechism, Ques. I f tl. xi. sec. ii.

153, repentance is placed before faith. |

Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 23

matter, says,* " Hoc semper lectoribus testatum esse volo, quoties
in hac quaestione nominamus solam fidem, noii mortuam a nobis
fingi, et quae per caritatem non operatur : sed ipsam statui unicam
justificationis causam. Fides ergo sola est quae justificet : fides
tamen quse justificat, non est sola." It is a curious fact, that while
many Romish writers, and others who have corrupted the doctrine
of Scripture upon this subject, have misrepresented the great
doctrine of the Reformation, that faith alone justifies, as meaning
or implying that nothing but faith is in any sense required of men
in order to their being forgiven, or does in fact invariably exist in
justified men, Bellarmine accurately and fairly lays it down as one
of the leading differences between the Reformers and the Church
of Rome on the subject of justifying faith, that the Reformers
held, " fidem solam justificare, nunquam tamen posse esse solam ;"
whereas the Romanists taught, in full and exact contrast with
this, "fidem non justificare solam, sed tamen posse esse solam."f
Again, the Reformers did not ascribe to faith, in the matter
of justification, any meritorious or inherent efficacy in producing
the result, but regarded it simply as the instrument or hand by
which a man apprehended or laid hold of, and appropriated to
himself, the righteousness of Ciirist ; and it was only in that very
general and, strictly speaking, loose and improper sense, which
was consistent with this view of its function and operation in the
matter, that they called it, as Calvin does in the extract above
quoted from him, the cause of justification. Such were the clear
and explicit doctrines of the Reformers on the subject of the
means of justification, its relation to faith, and the place and
function of faith in the matter.

. On all these topics the Council of Trent has spoken with
some degree of obscurity and unfairness, insinuating misrepre-
sentations of the real doctrines of the Reformers, and brin^inij
out somewhat vaguely and imperfectly what they meant to teach
in opposition to them. In accordance with their principles, they
could not admit that there was any sense in which faith alone
justified, or in which men were justified by faith only ; for, as
we have seen, they held that inherent personal righteousness was
the only formal cause, and that baptism was the instrumental

* Calvini Antid. in Sextam Ses- I f Bellarm. Be Justificat. lib. i.
sionem : in Canon, xi. iii.

24 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXF.

cause, of justification. Accordingly, they denied* that a sinner
is justified by faith alone, in such wise as to mean that nothing
else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace
of justification. Now this is quite equivalent to denying that
{71 any sense faith alone justifies ; for anything which acts or
operates in order to obtaining justification, may be said to justify;
and as the canon clearly implies that there is always something
else conjoined with faith in the matter of justification, different
from faith itself, and equally with it operating in order to obtain
justification, it follows that in no sense does faith alone justify.
And, in accordance with this view, they explain the sense in
which they understand the apostle's ascription of justification to
faith, f — in which alone they admit that faith justifies at all, —

. in this way : " We are therefore, or for this reason, said to be
justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salva-
tion, the foundation and the root of all justification." By this

' they mean that faith justifies, or is said to justify, because, or
inasmuch as, it is the chief means of producing that personal
righteousness which is the true cause or ground of justification ;
or, as it is thus rather oddly and awkwardly explained by Bellar-
mine : " Fidem non tam justificare, quam justificare, ut initium,
et radicem primam justificationis ; hinc enim sequetur non ipsam
solam justificare, sed sic eam agere in hoc negotio, quod suum
est, ut etiam ceteris virtutibus locum relinquat." The title of
the chapter from which this curious extract is taken | is, "Fidem
justificare, sed non solam, idem enim facere timorem, spem, et
dilectionem," etc. And he had previously laid down this as one
of the leading differences between Protestants and Romanists
on the subject of justifying faith : " Quod ipsi (the Protestants)
solam fidem justificare contendunt, nos ei comites adjungimus in
hoc ipso officio justificandi, sive ad justitiam disponendi." §

Indeed, the function or place which the Council of Trent
assigns to faith in this matter, is rather that of preparing or dis-
posing men to receive justification, than of justifying; and even
in this subordinate work of preparing or disposing men to receive
justification, they give to faith only a co-ordinate place along
with half a dozen of other virtues. For the sake of clearness, I

* Dc Justijicat. can. ix.
t Sess. vi. c. viii.

t Bellann. De Justificat. lib. i. cap.
xiii.
§ Ihid. cap. iii.

Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 25

shall explain this important point in the words of Bellarmine,
rather than in the vague and obscure verbiage which the Council
of Trent has thought proper to employ upon this subject. He
says : " Adversarii .... sola fide justificationem acquiri, sive
apprehendi decent : Catholici contra, ac pra^sertim Synodus ipsa
Tridentina (quara omnes Catholici, ut magistram sequuntur) sess.
vi. cap. vi. Septem actus enumerat, quibus impii ad justitiam
disponuntur, videlicet fidei, timoris, spei, dilectionis, poenitentioB,
propositi suscipiendi sacramenti, et propositi novae vitse, atque
observatlonis mandatorum Dei."* So that men, before they can
obtain the forgiveness of their sins and the renovation of their v
natures, — the two things in which, according to the Church of
Eome, justification consists, — must exercise faith, fear, hope, love,
penitence, and have a purpose of receiving the sacrament, and of
leading a new and obedient life ; and even after they have done
all this, they are not justified, for none of these things justifies,
but only prepares or disposes to justification.

This subject, of men disposing or preparing themselves to re-
ceive justification, is an important feature in the theology of the
Church of Rome, and may require a few words of explanation.
First of all, it is needed only in adults : all baptized infants re-
ceive in baptism, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome,
forgiveness and regeneration, without any previous disposition or
preparation, — God in baptism first renewing, and then forgiving
them, and thus completely removing from them all the effects of
original sin, — a doctrine the falsehood and injurious influence of
which has been already exposed; but all adults must be disposed or
prepared, by exercising the seven virtues, as Romanists commonly
call them, above enumerated, before they receive either forgive-
ness or renovation. We are not called upon at present to advert
to the absurdity of the alleged antecedency of all these virtues or
graces to the sanctifi cation of the inner man, in which partly
justification consists; but when we find faith placed in the very
same relation to justification as the other virtues with which it is
here classed, and even then not allowed to justify, or to be that
by which men are justified, but merely to prepare or dispose men
for receiving justification, we are irresistibly constrained to ask if
this is anything like the place assigned to it, in the matter of jus-

* Bellarm. De Justijicat. lib. i. cap. xii.

26 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

tification, by the Apostle Paul when he was expounding the way
of a sinner's salvation to the Christians at Rome"?

But we must at present consider what the modern Church of
Rome teaches about this matter of disposing or preparing men for
justification, — a subject on which the apostle certainly left the
Roman Christians of liis day in profound ignorance, though he
seems to have intended to open up to them the whole doctrine of
justification, so far as he knew it. The Council of Trent gives us
scarcely any direct or explicit information as to what they mean
by these seven virtues disposing or preparing men for justifica-
tion, except that it is necessary that they should all exist, and be
exercised, before men are forgiven and renewed, and that they
exert some influence in bringing about the result. It tells us, how-
ever, that none of those things that precede justification, whether
faith or works, merit or deserve the grace of justification itself;
and this had so far an appearance of deference to plain scriptural
principles. It is not, however, by any means certain — nay, it is
very improbable — that the council, by this declaration, meant to
take away from these preliminary and preparatory virtues any-
thing but the strict and proper merit of condignity, which they
reserved for the good works of justified men. The council does
not, indeed, formally sanction, as I have already mentioned, the
distinction which prevailed universally in the Church of Rome
at the time when the Reformation commenced, between merit of
congruity and merit of condignity. But neither has it formally
nor by implication condemned it ; and it is certain that most
Romish writers since the council have continued to retain and to
apply this distinction, — have regarded the decision which we are
considering, merely as denying to these dispositive or preparatory
works merit of condignity, and have not scrupled, notwithstand-
ing this decision, to ascribe to them merit of congruity ; or, in
other words, to represent them as exerting some meritorious effi-
cacy, though in a subordinate sense, and of an imperfect. kind, in
procuring for men justification. Bellarmine fully and explicitly
asserts all this. He maintains that the decision of the council,
that these dispositive and preparatory works do not merit justifi-
cation, means merely that they do not merit it ex condigyio, — con-
tends that they do merit it ex congruo, — and asserts that this is
the view taken by most, though not by all, Romish writers, both
as to the truth of the case and the real import of the decision of

Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 27

the council; from all wliicli we are warranted in concluding that
the decision of the council, denying merit to those things which
precede justification, is equivocal, and was intended to be equivo-
cal and deceptive. Bellarmine for one — and this is true also of
the generality of Romish writers — goes so far as to assert explicitly
that these virtues are meritorious causes of justification; and he
was fully warranted in doing so, if it be true that the Council of
Trent did not deny, or intend to deny, to them merit of con-
gruity ; and if it be also the general doctrine of the Church of
Rome, as he asserts it is, " Potius f undari meritum de congruo in
aliqua dignitate operis, quam in promissione." *

There was also a great deal of controversy between the Re-
formers and the Romanists on the definition and nature of justi-
fying faith, and the way and manner in which it acted or operated
in the matter of justification. The Reformers generally con-
tended that justifying faith was Jiducia, and had its seat in the
will ; and the Romanists that it was merely assensuSj and had its
seat in the understanding. This is a subject, however, on which
it must be admitted that there has been a considerable difference
of opinion, or at least of statement, among orthodox Protestant
divines in more modern times ; and which, at least in the only
sense in which it has been controverted among Protestants who
were in the main orthodox, does not seem to me to be determined
in the standards of our church. While the Reformers unanimously
and explicitly taught that faith which alone justified did not justify
by any meritorious or inherent efficacy of its own, but only as the
instrument of receiving or laying hold of what God had provided,
— had freely offered and regarded as the alone ground or basis on
which He passed an act of forgiveness with respect to any indivi-
dual, viz., the righteousness of Christ, — the Council of Trent can
scarcely be said to have determined anything positive or explicit
as to the office or function of faith in justification, or as to the
way and manner in which it can be said to justify, beyond what
is contained in the statement formerly quoted, viz., that we are
said to be justified by faith for this reason, because faith is the
beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all
justification. There is little information given us here except

C. XXI,

* Bellarm. De Jiistificat. lib. i. c. xxi. See also lib. i. c. xvii. ; lib. v.

28 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

this, that the reason why Scripture assigns so much prominence
to faith, in the matter of justification, is, because faith is the
cliief means of originating and producing Christian graces and
good works ; while, at the same time, it should be remembered
that Romanists teach, as we have seen, that it does not necessarily
and invariably produce them, as Protestants hold, but that it may
exist alone, or unaccompanied by them.

But while the Council of Trent does not formally and expli-
citly teach more than this upon this point, there is nothing in the
decree to preclude, and much in the general scope and spirit of its
statements to countenance, the doctrine which has unquestionably
been held by the great body of the most eminent Romish writers,
viz., that faith has in itself some real and even meritorious efficacy
— i.e., meritum de congruo, as already explained — in disposing to,
and in procuring or obtaining, justification. This doctrine is thus
expressed by Bellarmine, who lays it down as the doctrine of the
Church of Rome : "Fidem etiam a caritate disjunctam, alicujus esse
pretii, et vim habere justificandi per modum dispositionis, et impe-
trationis;"* and again, "Fidem impetrare justificationem, . . .
ac per hoc justificare per modum dispositionis ac meriti ; " and
again, after stating fairly enough the doctrine of the Reformers
in this way, " Fidem non justificare per modum causge, aut digni-
tatis, aut meriti, sed solum relative, quia videlicet credendo accipit,
quod Deus promittendo offert," he thus states in contrast the
doctrine of the Church of Rome, " Fidem justificare impetrando,
ac promerendo . . . justificationem ; " and again, " Fidem . . .
impetrare, atque aliquo modo mereri justificationem ;" f while he
applies similar statements to the other virtues, which, equally
with faith, precede and dispose to justification, describing them
expressly as meritorious causes of justification.

We have now only to advert briefly to the differences between
the Romanists and the Reformers on some points which may be
comprehended under the general Iiead of the results or consequences
of justification ; and, first, we may explain the views respectively
entertained by them as to the way in which sins committed sub-
sequently to justification are pardoned. The Reformers taught
I that these sins were pardoned upon the same ground and through
'the same means as those committed before justification, — viz.,

* Bellarm. De Justificat. lib. i. cap. iii. t I-iib. i. cap. xvLi.

Sec. L] popish AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 29

upon the ground of Christ's righteousness, and through the exer-
cise of faith apprehending, or laying hold of, and appropriating it.
As the Church of Rome teaches that baptism is the instrumental
cause of justification, so she has invented anotlier sacrament, and
established it as the only channel through which post-baptismal
sins, as she commonly calls them, can be forgiven ; for the Coun-
cil of Trent anathematizes all who say* that "a man who has »
fallen after baptism is able to receive the justice which he has
lost, by faith alone, without the sacrament of penance." They
do not, however, regard the forgiveness, which the sacrament of
penance conveys in regard to post-baptismal sins, as so perfect and
complete as that which baptism conveys in regard to the sins
which preceded it ; for they teach that the sacrament of penance,
while it takes away all the guilt of mortal sins, in so far as this
would otherwise have exposed men to eternal punishment, leaves
men still exposed to temporal punishment, properly so called, for
their mortal sins, and to tlie guilt, such as it is, of their venial
sins ; and thus needs to be supplemented by satisfactions, rendered
either by sinners themselves, or by others in their room, and either
in this life or in purgatory. These doctrines are plainly tauglit
in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth canons ; and as there is no room
for doubt as to what the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon
this point is, we need not at present further dwell upon it.

The same observation applies to the second topic, which might
be comprehended under the general head of the results or co7i~
sequences of justification, — viz. tJiis, that the Church of Rome
teaches that it is possible for men, when once justified, to keep
in this life wholly and perfectly the law of God; nay, even to
go beyond this, and to supererogate, and that they can truly and
properly merit or deserve, with proper merit of condignity, in-
crease of grace and eternal life. These doctrines, with the ex-
ception of that of works of supererogation — which can be shown
to be the doctrine of the church otherwise, though not so directly
— are taught clearly and unequivocally in the eighteenth, twenty-
fourth, and thirty-second canons.

The last topic which it is needful to advert to, in order to
complete the view of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon
this important subject, is the certainty or assurance which believers

* Canon xxix.

30 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

have, or may have, or should have, of their being in a justified
state, and of their persevering in it. Tliis topic is explained in
canons thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth. The Council
of Trent taught that no man can have any certainty or assurance
that he will persevere and attain to eternal life, without a special
revelation ; but this topic was not much discussed at the time of
the Reformation, and it belongs more properly to the controversy
between the Calvinists and the Arminians. The dispute between
the Reformers and the Romanists in connection with this matter
turned mainly upon this question, whether men could or should have
any certainty or assurance that they were at present in a justified
state, and would of course be saved if they persevered in it. And
iipon this point many of the most eminent orthodox Protestant
divines have been of opinion that both the Reformers and the Council
of Trent carried their respective views to an extreme, and that the
truth lay somewhere between them. The Romanists, in their anxiety
to deprive men of all means of attaining to anything like certainty
or assurance that they were in a justified and safe condition, and
thus to keep them entirely dependent upon the church, and wholly
subject to her control, denied the possibility of certainty or assur-
ance ; while the Reformers in general maintained its necessity,
and in order, as it were, to secure it in the speediest and most
effectual way, usually represented it as necessarily involved in the
very nature of the first completed act of saving faith. The gene-
rality of orthodox Protestant divines in more modern times have
maintained, in opposition to the Church of Rome, the possibility
of attaining to a certainty or assurance of being in a justified and
regenerated condition, and the duty of seeking and of having this
certainty and assurance, as a privilege which God has provided
for His people, and a privilege the possession of which is fitted to
contribute greatly not only to their happiness, but to their holiness;
while they have commonly so far deviated from the views enter-
tained by many of the Reformers, as to deny its necessity, except
in the sense of obligation, and more especially to represent it as not
necessarily involved in the exercise of saving faith : and this is the
view given of the matter in the standards of our church. But this
is a topic of comparatively subordinate importance, as it does not
essentially affect men's actual condition in God's sight, their relation
to Him, or their everlasting destiny, but rather their present peace
and comfort, and the advancement of the divine life in their souls.

Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 31

There have thus been brought out many most important
differences between the doctrines of the Church of Rome and
those generally held by orthodox Protestants, on the meaning
and nature, the ground and cause, the means and instrument,
the results and consequences, of justification ; and we must now
proceed to give some explanation of the way in which the Refor-
mers established their doctrines upon these subjects, and proved
that those of the Cliurch of Rome were inconsistent with the
word of God, and dangerous to the souls of men.

Sec. 2. — Nature of Justification.

We shall advert briefly to the grounds on which we main-
tain that justification is properly descriptive only of a change
of state in men's judicial relation to God, and to His law, as
including forgiveness and acceptance or admission to God's
favour, in opposition to the Romish doctrine that it comprehends
a change of character, the renovation of men's moral nature, or,
as Papists commonly call it, the infusion of an inherent right-
eousness. Justification is God's act, — it is He who justifies ; and
we must be guided wholly by the statements of His word, in de-
termining what the real nature of this act of His is. We must
regard justification as just being what the word of God repre-
sents it to be ; we must understand the word in the sense in which
it is employed in the sacred Scriptures. The question then is,
In what sense are the words justification and its cognates used in
Scripture ; and more especially, should any variety in its mean-
ing and application be discovered there, in what sense is it em-
ployed in those passages in which it is manifest that the subject
ordinarily expressed by it is most fully and formally explained ?
Now the truth upon this point is so clear and certain in itself,
and has been so generally admitted by all but Romanists, that it
is unnecessary to occupy much time with the illustration of it.

It has been proved innumerable times, by evidence against
which it is impossible to produce anything that has even plausi-
bility, that the word justification is generally used in Scripture in
what is called a forensic or judicial sense, as opposed to condem-
nation; that it means to reckon, or declare, or pronounce just
or righteous, as if by passing a sentence to that effect ; and that
it does not include in its signification, as the Council of Trent

32 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

asserts, the making just or righteous, by effecting an actual chantre
on the moral character and principles of men. The Council of
Trent says that justification is not only the remission of sins, but
also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man. But the
I inspu'ed writers plainly do not ordinarily employ it to describe an
actual change effected upon men's character, but only a change
effected upon their legal state or condition by a forensic or judi-
cial act of the Justifier. It implies the pronouncing, more or less
formally, of a sentence, — a sentence not of condemnation, but
of acquittal or acceptance. It has been alleged that the original
and radical idea of the word BiKatoco is to punish ; and there are
some considerations which favour this notion, though it cannot be
said to be established by satisfactory evidence. But even if this
were admitted to be the primary or radical idea expressed by the
word, there would be no great difficulty in tracing the process by
which it came to acquire what seems to be the nearly opposite
meaning it bears in the New Testament. When a man has had
a sentence of condemnation passed upon him for an offence, and
has, in consequence, endured the punishment imposed, he is free
from all further charge or liability, and might be said to be now
justified in the derived sense of the word, or to have now virtually
a sentence of acquittal pronounced upon him. A punished person
in this way virtually becomes a justified one, and the two notions
are thus not so alien or contradictory as they might at first sight
appear to be. And it should not be forgotten that, in the matter
of the justification of a sinner before God, there has been a
punishment inflicted and endured, which is in every instance the
ground or basis of the sinner's justification. When the apostle
says, as he is represented in our translation,* " He that is dead is
free from sin," the literal, real meaning of his statement is, " He
that has died has been justified from sin," BeBLKamrai; and the
import of this declaration (which furnishes, I think, the key to
the interpretation of the chapter) is, that a man, by dying, and
thereby enduring the punishment due to his sin (which sinners, of
course, do in their Surety, whose death is imputed to them), has
escaped from all further liability, and has a sentence virtually
pronounced upon him, whereby he is justified from sin.

But whatever might be the primary meaning of the word

* Rom. vi. 7.

Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 33

justify, and whatever the process of thought by which its meaning
may have been afterward modified, it can be very easily and con-
clusively proved, that both in the Old and in the New Testament
it is ordinarily employed in a forensic or judicial sense, and means
not to make or render righteous by changing the character, but
to reckon, declare, or pronounce righteous by a sentence formal
or virtual, changing the state or condition in relation to a judge
and a law. The Socinian system of justification is, in its general
scope and tendency, very much akin to the Popish one ; for both
tend to assign to men themselves an infl.uential and meritorious
share in securing their own ultimate happiness ; and yet even the
Socinians admit that the word justify is used in the New Testa-
ment in a forensic sense, to denote the declaring or pronouncing
men righteous. It is true that something else than a love of truth
might lead them to concur with Protestants in the interpretation
of this word ; for the idea of God's making men righteous by
effecting some change upon their character, or what the Romanists
call the infusion of righteousness, — which they allege to be in-
cluded in justification, — does not harmonize with the Socinian
system, according to which men do not need to be made righteous,
since they have always been so, — do not need to have righteous-
ness infused into them, since they have never existed without it.

Almost the only man of eminence in modern times beyond the
pale of the Church of Rome, who has contended that the proper
meaning of the word justify in Scripture is to make righteous
— i.e.y to sanctify — is Grotius, whose inadequate sense of the im-
portance of sound doctrine, and unscriptural and spurious love of
peace, made him ever ready to sacrifice or compromise truth, whether
it was to please Papists or Socinians.* The course adopted upon
this subject in Newman's Lectures on Justijication is rather curious
and instructive. Newman's general scheme of doctrine upon this
subject, though it was published some years before he left the
Church of England, and though Dr. Pusey issued a pamphlet for
the purpose of showing that there was nothing Popish about it, is
beyond all reasonable doubt identical, in its fundamental principles
and general tendencies, with that of the Council of Trent and the
Church of Rome, to which its author has since formally submit-
ted himself. The fact, however, that the articles of the church

* Grotius, Prsef. ad Rom.
3 — VOL. II. 0

34 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXf.

to which he then belonged (and which, at the time, he does not
seem to have had any intention of leaving) had fixed the mean-
ing of the word justify to be, to " account righteous before God,"
as well as perhaps some sense of the scriptural evidence in support
of this view of its meaning, prevented him from openly adopting
the definition which the Council of Trent gave of justification ;
and obliged him to admit that the proper meaning of the word in
Scripture is to declare or pronounce, and not to make or render,
righteous. He feels, however, that this admission exposes him to
some disadvantage and difficulty in the exposition and defence- of
liis Popish system ; and he is, besides, greatly distressed at finding
himself in the awkward position, to use his own words,* of ventur-
ing "to prefer Luther in any matter even of detail to St. Austin,"
the former of whom, he says, was merely the founder of a school,
or sect, while the latter was a father in the Holy Apostolic
Church ; f and on these accounts he is obliged to devise some ex-
pedient for practically and in substance withdrawing the conces-
sion he had been compelled to make; and it is this : J "To justify,
means in itself 'counting righteous,' but includes under its mean-
ing ' making righteous : ' in other words, the sense of the term is
' counting righteous ; ' and the sense of the thing denoted by it is,
making righteous. In the abstract, it is a counting righteous ; in
the concrete, a making righteous." These words may probably be
regarded as not very intelligible, but the general object or ten-
dency of them is plain enough ; and it is met and exposed simply
by recollecting that Scripture, being given by inspiration, and
therefore a higher authority than even the unanimous consent of
the fathers, just means what it says, and that by the terms which
it employs it conveys to us accurate conceptions of the things
denoted by them. The course pursued by Newman in this
matter is fitted to impress upon us at once the difficulty and the
importance, for Popish purposes, of evading the clear scriptural
evidence of the forensic sense of the word — justify.

But it is unnecessary to adduce in detail the scriptural evi-
dence in support of the Protestant meaning of the word — justify.
I may briefly advert, however, to the way in which Popish writers
have attempted to meet it. They do not deny that the word is

* Newman's Lectures on Justijica- I t ^f'^f^- P- 67.

tion, p. 70. 2d Edition. | j Ibid. p. 71.

Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 35

sometimes, nay often, taken in Scripture in a forensic sense. Its
meaning is too clearly and conclusively fixed by the context in
some passages, especially in those in which it is formally opposed
to the word condemn^ to admit this position. But they usually
contend that this is not the only meaning which the word bears in
the Scriptures, — that there are cases in which it means to make
righteous, — and that, consequently, they are entitled to regard
this idea as contained in its full scriptural import. Now it is to
be observed that the position which Protestants maintain upon this
subject is not, that in every passage where the word occurs there
exists evidence by which it can be proved from that passage alone,
taken by itself, that the word there is used in a forensic sense,
and cannot admit of any other. They concede that there are
passages where the word occurs in which there is nothing in the
passage itself, or in the context, to fix down its meaning to the
sense of counting righteous, in preference to making righteous.
Their position is this, — that there are many passages where it is
plain that it must be taken in a forensic sense, and cannot admit
of any other ; and that there are none, or at least none in which
the justification of a sinner before God is formally and explicitly
spoken of, in which it can be proved that the forensic sense is
inadmissible or necessarily excluded, and that it must be taken in
the sense of making righteous. If these positions are true, then
the Protestant view of the Scripture meaning and import of jus-
tification is established ; for we are of course entitled to apply
to those passages in which the sense of the word is not fixed by
that particular passage, the meaning which it must bear in many
passages, and which cannot be shown to be certainly inadmissible
in any one. This being the true state of the argument, Romanists,
in order to make out their case, are bound to produce passages in
which it can be shown that the word cannot be taken in a forensic
sense, and must be regarded as meaning to make righteous. And
this, accordingly, they undertake; usually, however, endeavour-
ing in the first place to involve the subject in obscurity, by trying
to show that there are various senses — four at least — in which the
word justify is used in Scripture. The Romanists, of course, in
this discussion, are fully entitled to choose their own ground and
to select their own texts, in which they think they can prove that
the forensic sense is inadmissible or necessarily excluded, and that
of making righteous is required ; while all that Protestants have

36 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

to do, is merely to prove that the Romanists have not succeeded
in conclusively establishing these positions.

The texts usually selected by Romanists for this purpose are
the following : * — " Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them
He also called ; and whom He called, them He also justified ; and
whom He justified, them He also glorified," — where, as there
is no explicit mention of regeneration or sanctification in this
description of the leading steps of the process of the salvation of
sinners, it is contended that this must be comprehended in the
word justify, which seems to fill up the whole intermediate space
between calling and glorifying. Again : f " And such were some
of you : but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justi-
fied in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our
God," — where the general scope of the passage, and the position
of the word justified, it is alleged, show that at least it is not taken
in a forensic sense. Again,;}: the apostle speaks of the " renewing
of the Holy Ghost ; which He shed on us abundantly through
Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that, being justified by His grace, we
should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Again : § " He that is righteous, let him be righteous still," — the
original of which in the " textus receptus," as it is called, is koX 6
BiKato<i BiKaicod7]T(o en. Now, some Protestant writers have ad-
mitted that in these passages, or in some of them, the forensic use
of the word BtKaioco can be disproved; and Le Blanc, in the work
which I formerly referred to,|| and described, has produced all the
concessions of this kind which he could discover, and has laboured
himself to prove that these concessions could not have been fairly
withheld, and cannot be refused without a very forced and unwar-
rantable construction of the passages. Those Protestant divines
who have been disposed to admit that in these passages, or in some
of them, it can be shown that the word justify is not used in a
forensic sense, usually contend that it is quite sufficient, in order to
establish the Protestant doctrine, and to overthrow the Popish one,
about the meaning of justification, to show that the forensic sense
is that in which it is generally and ordinarily taken in Scripture,
and that it is taken in that sense, and in no other, in those passages

* Rom. viii. 30.
t 1 Cor. vi. 11.
i Tit, iii. 5, 6, 7.
§ Rev. xxii. 11.

II Theses Theological Sedanenses. De
usu et acceptione vocis Justificandi in
Scripturis et Scholis, pp. 265-G3.

Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 37

where the subject of the justification of a sinner before God is
most fully and formally set forth. There is force in this view of
the matter ; and if these positions can be established, as they cer-
tainly can, this is sufficient to show that it is unwarrantable to in-
troduce into the scriptural description of what the justification of
a sinner is, any other idea than that of a change of state in relation
to God and to His law, even though one or two instances may
occur in the Scriptures in which the word is used in a somewhat
wider and larger sense. This consideration is sufficient to save
Protestant commentators from any very strong temptation to per-
vert these passages from what may seem to be their true meaning,
in order to wrest a weapon out of the hands of an opponent ; and
I use the word temptation here, because it should never be for-
gotten that the highest and most imperative duty of all honest
investigators of Christian truth, is just to ascertain the true and
real meaning of every portion of the inspired word of God. I
cannot enter into a minute and detailed examination of those pas-
sages, and will make only one or two observations regarding them.
It will scarcely be disputed that, had these been the only pas-
sages in the New Testament where the word justify occurred, the
presumption would have been against it being taken in a forensic
sense, — to describe a change of legal relation, the passing of a
sentence of acquittal. But, from the explanation we have given
of the conditions of the argument, it will be seen that much more
than this must be proved in regard to them, in order to their
being of any service to the Papists, — even that the forensic sense
is clearly and conclusively shut out. Now I think it has been
satisfactorily proved that this cannot be effected, and that, on the
contrary, in regard to all the passages quoted — except, perhaps, the
one which occurs in the twenty-second chapter of the Revelation,
— it can be shown, and without any violent and unwarrantable
straining of the statements, that the ordinary and usual sense of
the word in the New Testament is not clearly and necessarily
excluded. In regard to the first of them — that occurring in the
eighth of the Romans — it is contended that we have no right
to assume, as the Popish argument does, that the apostle must
necessarily have comprehended, in the description he gave, every
step in the process of a sinner's salvation, every one of the lead-
ing blessings which God bestows ; that the train of thought
which the apostle was pursuing at the time — or, what is in sub-

38 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

stance the same thing, the context and scope of the passage — did
not require this, as Calvin has shown in his commentary upon
it ; and that even if we were to assume — what, however, is not
necessary, and is therefore, from the conditions of the argument,
unwarrantable — that all the leading blessings of salvation must
have been directly or by implication adverted to, we are under
no more necessity of supposing that regeneration, by which men
are made righteous, must be included under justification, than
under vocation or glorification.

There is no serious difficulty in the passage quoted from the
sixth of First Corinthians. Justify cannot here mean to make
righteous,^ — i.e., it cannot be identical with, or comprehensive of,
regeneration and sanctification ; for it is distinguished from them,
while they are expressly mentioned. And as to the allegation that
it cannot be here understood in a forensic sense because it is
introduced after " washed and sanctified," and is ascribed to the
operation of the Holy Spirit, it is answered, that the inspired
writers do not always, in other cases, restrict themselves to what
may be called the natural order of time, — that the apostle's train
of thought in the preceding context naturally led him to give
prominence and precedency to washing and sanctification ; while
he was also naturally led on, in magnifying their deliverance and
in enforcing their obligations, to introduce, as completing the
description of what had been done for them, their justification, or
deliverance from guilt and condemnation ; and that justification as
well as sanctification may be, and is, ascribed to the Holy Spirit
as well as to Christ, since it is He who works faith in them and
thereby unites them to Christ, which union is the origin and the
ground of all the blessings they enjoy.

The argument which the Romanists found on the third
chapter of Titus amounts in substance to this, — that the state-
ment seems to imply that men are renewed by the Holy Ghost,
in order that they may be justified by grace ; but it has been
proved, first, that neither the connection of the particular clauses
of the sentence, nor the general scope of the passage, requires
us to admit that the apostle intended to convey this idea ; and,
secondly, that, independently of all questions as to the exact
philological meaning of the word justify, this doctrine is incon-
sistent with the plain teaching of the word of God in regard to
the whole subject. I think it has been established, by such con-

Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 39

siderations as these, that in none of these three passages is there
any necessity for regarding the word — justify — as meaning or
including to make righteous, or for departing, in the interpreta-
tion of them, from its ordinary forensic sense.

The only one remaining, is that in the twenty-second chapter
of Revelation, " He that is righteous, let him be righteous still."
Now there does seem to be greater difficulty about this one ; for
the only senses which, in accordance with the context, and without
considerable straining, the word BtKaicoOijTco seems here to admit,
are either, " Let him be made righteous," i.e., more righteous, —
or, " Let him do righteousness," i.e., more righteousness. But, by
a remarkable coincidence, it so happens that there is good and con-
clusive ground, on the soundest and most universally recognised
principles of criticism, for believing that the reading in the " textus
receptus" is erroneous ; that the word hiKalow was not here used by
the apostle ; that SiKaLcoOTjTco ought to be removed from the text,
and the words hiKaioavvr^v iroirjaarw^ literally expressing the second
of the two meanings above mentioned, as apparently required by
the context, substituted in its room. Griesbach, Scholz, Lach-
mann, and Tischendorf — i.e., all the most recent and most eminent
investigators into the sacred text — have done this without any
hesitation ; and the purely critical grounds on which this change is
based, have commended themselves to the minds of all competent
judges. I cannot prosecute this subject further; but what appear
to me to be satisfactory discussions of these texts, as adduced by
Le Blanc and the Romanists, may be found in Dr. Owen's great
work on Justification,* in Witsius' (Economy of the Covenants, f
and De Moor's Commentary on Marckius.X Witsius, in reference
to the concessions which some Protestant divines had made to
Romanists about the meaning of the word justify in some of
these passages, says : " Et sane non exagitanda hsec maximorum
virorum ingenuitas est, qui licet tantum adversariis dederint, feli-
citer tamen de iis in summa rei triumpharunt. Verum enimvero
nos rationes sufficientes non videmus, quae ipsos tam liberales
esse coegerint. Nulla vis allegatis inferretur locis, si ibi quoque
justificandi verbum, sensu, qui Paulo ordinarius est, acciperetur ;
neque minus commode omnia tunc fluere videntur." §

t Lib. iii. c. viii,
X C. xxiv. torn. iv.

§ Wits. CEconom. Feed. lib. iii. cap
viii. sec. vii.

40 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

The word justify^ then, in its scriptural use, means to reckon,
or pronounce, or declare righteous, or to resolve on treating as
righteous ; and the justification of a sinner, therefore, is descrip-
tive of a change effected by an act of God, not upon his moral
character, but upon his state or condition in relation to the law
under which he was placed, and to God, the author and the
guardian of that law, — a change wliereby he who is the object of
it ceases to be held or reckoned and treated as guilty, and liable
to punishment, — has a sentence of acquittal and approbation pro-
nounced upon him, is forgiven all his past offences, and is ad-
mitted into the enjoyment of God's favour and friendship. God
has, indeed — as is clearly set forth in His word, and as the Re-
formers fully admitted — made complete and effectual provision
that every sinner whom He pardons and accepts shall also be
born again, and renewed in the whole man after His own image ;
but He does not describe to us this change upon men's moral
character by the name of justification. He assigns to this other
equally indispensable change a different name or designation ;
and although — according to the fundamental principles of the
scheme which He has devised for the salvation of sinners, which
He has fully revealed to us in His word, and which He is execut-
ing by His Spirit and in His providence — there has been estab-
lished and secured an invariable connection in fact between
these two great blessings which He bestows, — these two great
changes which He effects, — yet, by the representations which He
has given us of them in His word, He has imposed upon us an
obligation to distinguish between them, to beware of confounding
them, and to investigate distinctly and separately all that we find
revealed regarding them in the sacred Scriptures. If this be so,
the first and most obvious inference to be deduced from it is, that
the Council of Trent and the Church of Eome have erred, have
corrupted and perverted the truth of God, in defining justification
to be not only the remission of sin, but also the renovation of the
inner man ; and thus confounding it with, or unwarrantably ex-
tending it so as to include, regeneration and sanctification, or the
infusion of an inherent personal righteousness. Every error in
the things of God is sinful and dangerous, and tends to extend
and propagate itself ; and while thus darkening men's under-
standings, it tends also to endanger, or to affect injuriously, their
spiritual welfare. An error as to the scriptural meaning and

Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 41

import of justification — and especially an error which thus con-
founds, or mixes up together, the two great blessings of the
gospel — must tend to introduce obscurity and confusion into
men's whole conceptions of the method of salvation.

It is true that even Augustine, notwithstanding all his pro-
found knowledge of divine truth, and the invaluable services
which he was made the instrument of rendering to the cause of
sound doctrine and of pure Christian theology, does not seem to
have ever attained to distinct apprehensions of the forensic mean-
ing of justification, and usually speaks of it as including or com-
prehending regeneration ; and this was probably owing, in some
measure, to his want of familiarity with the Greek language, to his
reading the New Testament in Latin, and being thus somewhat
led astray by the etymological meaning of the word justification.
The subject of justification, in the scriptural and Protestant sense
of it, had not been discussed in the church, or occupied much of
its attention, since the time of the Apostle Paul. The whole
tendency of the course of sentiment which had prevailed in the
church from the apostolic age to that of Augustine, was to lead
men to throw the doctrine of justification into the background,
and to regard it as of inferior importance. When Pelagius, and
his immediate followers, assailed -the doctrines of grace, it was
exclusively in the way of ascribing to men themselves the power
or capacity to do God's will and to obey His law, and to effect
whatever changes might be necessary in order to enable them to
accomplish this. And to this point, accordingly, the attention of
Augustine was chiefly directed ; while the subject of justification
remained in a great measure neglected. But from the general
soundness of his views and feelings in regard to divine things, and
his profound sense of the necessity of referring everything bearing
upon the salvation of sinners to the grace of God and the work of
Christ, his defective and erroneous views about the meaning and
import of the word justification did not exert so injurious an in-
fluence as might have been expected, either upon his theological
system or upon his character ; and assumed practically very much
the aspect of a mere philological blunder, or of an error in phrase-
ology, rather than in real sentiment or conviction. And Calvin
accordingly refers to it in the following terms : " Ac ne Augustini
quidem sententia vel saltern loquendi ratio per omnia recipienda
est. Tametsi enim egregie hominem omni justiiice laude spoliat, ac

JUSTIFICATION.

[Chap. XXT.

totam Dei gratice transcrihit : gratiam tamen ad sanctificationem
refert, qua in vitge novitatem per Spiritum regeneramur."* The
whole tendency on the part of the great body of the church for
about a thousand years after Augustine, notwithstanding all the
respect that was professedly entertained for him, was to throw all
that was sacred and scriptural in his system of doctrine into the
background, and to bring all that was defective and erroneous in
his opinions into prominence and influence ; and hence there is this
singular aspect presented by the decrees of the Council of Trent,
that while it might probably be difficult to prove that they con-
tain much, if anything, which formally and in terminis contradicts
any of the leading doctrines of Augustine, they yet exhibit to us a
system of theology which, in its whole bearing, spirit, and tendency,
is opposed to that which pervaded the mind and the writings of
that great man, and which much more nearly approximates in these
respects to that of his opponents in the Pelagian controversy.

But while this much may be justly said in defence of by far
the greatest and most useful man whom God gave to the church
from the apostolic age till the Reformation, it should not be for-
gotten that his defective and erroneous views upon the subject of
justification were at once the effect and the cause of the attention
of the church being withdrawn, through the artifices of Satan,
from a careful study of what Scripture teaches as to the nature
and necessity of forgiveness and acceptance, and the way and
manner in which men individually receive and become possessed
of them ; and of men being thus led to form most inadequate
impressions of what is implied in their being all guilty and under
the curse of the law as transgressors, and of the indispensable
necessity of their being washed from their sins in the blood of
Christ. The natural tendency of men is to consider the guilt
incurred by the violation of God's law as a trivial matter, which
may be adjusted without any great difficulty ; and this tendency
is strengthened by vague and erroneous impressions about the
character of God, and the principles that regulate His government
of the world. And where something about Christianity is known,

* Calv. Inst. lib. iii. c. xi. sec. 15.
Bellarmine, in quoting this passage,
as a concession of Calvin, that all
the fathers, even Augustine, were op-
posed to him on this point, omits all

the words that are in italics, and gives
the first and the last clauses as the
whole passage. De Justijicat. lib. ii.
cap. viii.

Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 43

this universal and most dangerous tendency appears in the form of
leading men to cherish, and to act upon, a vague impression that,
because Christ came into the world to save us from our sins, men
need have no great anxiety about any guilt that may attach to them,
even while they have not a single distinct and definite conception
about the way in which Christ's mediatorial work bears upon the
deliverance and salvation of the human race, or of the way in which
men individually become possessed of forgiveness and acceptance.
I have no doubt that it is to be regarded as an indication and
result of this state of mind and feeling, that there has been so strong
and general a tendency to extend, beyond what Scripture warrants,
the meaning of justification, and to mix it up with regeneration and
sanctification. Romish writers, in defending the doctrine of their
church upon this subject, sometimes talk as if they thought that
deliverance from guilt and condemnation — mere forgiveness and
acceptance — were scarcely important enough to exhaust the mean-
ing of the scriptural statements about justification, or to be held up
as constituting a great and distinct blessing, which ought to be by
itself a subject of diligent investigation to the understanding, and
of deep anxiety to the heart. All false conceptions of the system
of Christian doctrine assume, or are based upon, inadequate and
erroneous views and impressions of the nature and effects of the
fall, — of the sinfulness of the state into which man fell ; produc-
ing, of course, equally inadequate and erroneous views and im-
pressions of the difficulty of effecting their deliverance, and of the
magnitude, value, and efficacy of the provision made for accom-
plishing it. Forgiveness and regeneration, even when admitted
to be in some sense necessary, are represented as comparatively
trivial matters, which may be easily procured or effected, — the pre-
cise grounds of which need not be very carefully or anxiously
investigated, since there is no difficulty in regarding them as, in a
manner, the natural results of the mercy of God, or, as is often
added, though without any definite meaning being attached to it,
of the work of Christ. This appears most fully and palpably in
the Socinian system, which is just a plain denial of all that is
most peculiar and important in the Christian revelation, and in
the scheme there unfolded for the salvation of sinners. But it
appears to a considerable extent also in the Popish system, where,
though the bearing of the vicarious work of Christ upon the for-
giveness and renovation of men is not denied, it is thrown very

44 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

much into the background, and left in a state of great indefinite-
ness and obscurity ; and in which the importance of forgiveness
and admission into God's favour, as a great and indispensable
blessing, is overlooked and underrated, by being mixed up with
renovation and sanctification, — men's thoughts being thus with-
drawn from the due contemplation of the great truth that they
need forgiveness and acceptance, and from the investigation,
under a due sense of responsibility, of the way and manner in
which they are to receive or obtain it.

There are few things more important, either with reference to
the production of a right state of mind and feeling in regard to our
religious interests, or to the formation of a right system of theology,
than that men should be duly impressed with the conviction that
they are by nature guilty, subject to the curse of a broken law, con-
demned by a sentence of God, and standing as already condemned
criminals at this tribunal. If this be indeed the real condition of
men by nature, it is of the last importance, both as to the formation
of their opinions and the regulation of their feelings and conduct,
that they should be aware of it ; and that they should realize dis-
tinctly and definitely all that is involved in it. When this is under-
stood and realized, men can scarcely fail to be impressed with the
conviction, that the first and most essential thing in order to their
deliverance and welfare is, that this sentence which hangs over
them be cancelled, and that a sentence of an opposite import be
either formally or virtually pronounced upon them, — a sentence
whereby God forgives their sins and admits them into the enjoy-
ment of His favour, or in which He intimates His purpose and
intention no longer to hold them liable for their transgressions, or
to treat them as transgressors, but to regard and treat them as if
they had not transgressed ; and not only to abstain from punish-
ing them, but to admit them into the enjoyment of His favour.
The passing of such an act, or the pronouncing of such a sentence,
on God's part, is evidently the first and most indispensable thing
for men's deliverance and welfare. Men can be expected to form
a right estimate of the grounds on which such an act can be passed,
— such a change can be effected upon their condition and pro-
spects,— only when they begin with realizing their actual state
by nature, as guilty and condemned criminals, standing at God's
tribunal, and utterly unable to render any satisfaction for their
offences, or to merit anything whatever at God's hand.

Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 45

Sec. 3. — Imputation of Chris£s Righteousness.

Whatever meaning might be attached to the word justification
in Scripture, and even though it could be proved that, as used
there, it comprehended or described both a change in men's state
and in men's character, it would still be an important question,
deserving of a separate and very careful investigation. What are
the grounds or reasons on account of which God forgives any
man's sins, and admits him into the enjoyment of His favour ?
And it would still be an imperative duty, incumbent upon all men,
to examine with the utmost care into everything which Scripture
contains, fitted to throw any light upon this infinitely important
subject. Now I have already shown that, while the Council of
Trent ascribes, in general, the forgiveness and acceptance of sin-
ners to the vicarious work of Christ as its meritorious cause, in the
first place it gives no explanation of the way and manner in which
the work of Christ bears upon the accomplishment of this result
in the case of individuals ; and then, in the second place, it repre-
sents the only formal cause of our forgiveness to be an inherent
personal righteousness, infused into men by God's Spirit, — thus
teaching that that to which God has a respect or regard in pass-
ing an act of forgiveness in the case of any individual, is a per-
sonal righteousness, previously bestowed upon him, and wrought
in him ; while the only place or share assigned, or rather left, to
the work of Christ in the matter, is to merit, procure, or purchase
the grace, or gracious exercise of power, by which this inherent
personal righteousness is infused.

The Reformers and the Reformed confessions, on the other
hand, asserted that that to which God has directly and imme-
diately a respect in forgiving any man's sins, or that which is the
proper cause or ground of the act of forgiveness and acceptance,
is not an inherent personal righteousness infused into him, but
the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. By the righteousness
of Christ, the Reformers understood the whole vicarious work of
Christ, including both His sufferings as satisfactory to the divine
justice and law, which required that men's sins should be punished,
and His whole obedience to the law, as meritorious of the life
that was promised to obedience ; the former being usually called
by later divines, when these subjects came to be discussed with
greater minuteness and detail, HispasseW, and the latter His active,

46 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

righteousness. By this righteousness being imputed to any man,
they meant that it was reckoned to him, or put down to his ac-
count, so that God, from a regard to it thus imputed, virtually
agreed or resolved to deal with him, or to treat him, as if he
himself had suffered what Christ suffered, and had done what
Christ did ; and had thus fully satisfied for his offences, and fully
earned the rewards promised to perfect obedience. The Reformers
taught that, when God pardoned and accepted any sinner, the
ground or basis of the divine act — that to which God had directly
and immediately a respect or regard in performing it, or in pass-
ing a virtual sentence cancelling that man's sins, and admitting
him into the enjoyment of His favour — was this, that the right-
eousness of Christ was his, through his union to Christ ; that being
his in this way, it was in consequence imputed to him, or put
down to his account, just as if it were truly and properly his own;
and that this righteousness, being in itself fully satisfactory and
meritorious, formed an adequate ground on which his sins might
be forgiven and his person accepted. Now the Papists deny
that, in this sense, the righteousness of Christ, as satisfactory and
meritorious, is imputed to men as the ground or basis of God's
act in forgiving and accepting them ; and set up in opposition to
it, as occupying this place, and serving this purpose, an inherent
personal righteousness infused into them. And in this way the
state of the question, as usually discussed between Protestant and
Romish writers, is, as we formerly explained and proved, clearly
defined and marked out, although the decisions of the Council of
Trent upon this subject are involved in some obscurity.

The main grounds on which the Reformers contended that
the righteousness of Christ, imputed to a man, or given to him in
virtue of his union to Christ, and then held and reckoned as his,
was that to which God had respect in forgiving him, and admit-
ting him to the enjoyment of His favour, were these : First, that,
according to the general principles indicated in tlie sacred Scrip-
tures as regulating God's dealings with fallen man, a full satisfac-
tion and a perfect righteousness were necessary as the ground or
basis of an act of forgiveness and acceptance; and that there is no
adequate satisfaction and no perfect righteousness which can avail
for this result, except the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ ;
and, secondly, that the statements contained in Scripture as to the
place which Christ and His vicarious work, including His obedi-

Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 47

ence as well as His sufferings, hold in their bearing upon the for-
giveness and acceptance of sinners, necessarily imply this doctrine;
and that indeed the substance of these statements cannot be cor-
rectly, fully, and definitely brought out, or embodied in distinct and
explicit propositions, except just hy asserting that Christ's righteous-
ness is given and imputed to men, and is thus the ground or basis
on which God's act in forgiving and accepting them rests.

It is manifest that the doctrine of Christ being the surety and
substitute of sinners, and performing in that capacity a vicarious
work, implies that it was necessary that something should be suf-
fered and done by Him which might stand in the room and stead
of what should have been suffered and done by them ; and that
in this loay they, for whose salvation it was designed, have the
benefit of what He suffered and did in their room imparted to
them. This, accordingly, is admitted to be in substance what the
Scripture states as to the ground or basis oi forgiveness by all,
even Arminians, who admit a proper vicarious atonement or satis-
faction ; and they thus admit, though some of them make great
difficulties about the language or phraseology, the whole substance
of what is contended for under the name of the imputation of our
sins to Christ as the ground of His sufferings, and of the imputa-
tion of Christ's sufferings to us as the ground or basis of our
pardon. Now the Reformers, and Calvinistic divines in general,
have extended the same general principle to merit and acceptance,
which is admitted by all but Socinians to apply to the two other
correlatives, viz., satisfaction and forgiveness. The proper grounds
on which a criminal, who had violated a law, and had had a sen-
tence of condemnation pronounced upon him, is exempted from
liability to punishment, are either his having already endured in
his own person the full punishment appointed, or his having im-
puted to him, and so getting the benefit of, a full satisfaction made
by another in his room ; for I assume, at present, the necessity of
a satisfaction or atonement, — a principle which of course pre-
cludes any other supposition than the two now stated. But a
man might, on one or other of these two grounds, be pardoned or
forgiven, so as to be no longer liable to any further punishment,
while yet there was no ground or reason whatever why he should
be admitted into the favour or friendship of the judge or law-
giver,— receive from him any token of kindness, or be placed by
him in a position of honour and comfort. We find, however, in

48 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

Scripture, that, in the case of all justified men, these two things
are, in point of fact, invariably and inseparably combined ; and
that when God justifies a man. He not only pardons all his sins,
but admits him into the enjoyment of His favour, and virtually
pronounces upon him a sentence whereby He gives him a right
or title to happiness and heaven, and to everything necessary for
the full and permanent enjoyment of them.

The two things, however, though invariably combined, in fact,
in the gospel method of salvation, and in all on whom it takes
practical effect, are quite distinct in themselves, and easily sepa-
rable in idea; nay, they are so entirely distinct in their own nature,
that we cannot but conceive that each must have its own suitable
and appropriate ground to rest upon. As the proper ground of
au act of forgiveness or of immunity from further punishment
extended to a condemned criminal, in a case where there are
principles that preclude a mere discretionary pardon by a sove-
reign act of clemency, must be the endurance of the penalty
prescribed, either personal or by a vicarious satisfaction, so the
proper ground of a sentence of approbation and reward must,
from the nature of the case, be obedience to the law, personal or
vicarious, i.e., imputed. If a regard to the honour of the law
demanded, in the case of sinners, that there should be satisfac-
tion as the ground of forgiveness, because it had threatened
transgression with death, so it equally demanded that there
should be perfect obedience as the ground or basis of admission
to life. Perfect obedience to the law — or, what is virtually the
same thing, merit the result of perfect obedience — seems just as
necessary as the ground or basis of a virtual sentence of appro-
bation and reward, as satisfaction is as the ground or basis of a
sentence of forgiveness and immunity from further punishment.
And as there is no perfect righteousness in men themselves to be
the ground or basis of their being accepted or admitted to favour
and happiness, — as they can no more render perfect obedience
than they can satisfy for their sins, — Christ's perfect obedience
must become theirs, and be made available for their benefit, as
well as His suffering, — His merit as well as His satisfaction.

Papists unite with Arminians in denying the necessity of a
perfect righteousness, as the ground or basis of God's act in
accepting men's persons, and giving them a right and title to
heaven ; and in maintaining that all that is implied in the justi-

Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 49

fication of a sinner, so far as it is descriptive of a mere change of
state, consists only in forgiveness, based upon Christ's vicarious
sufferings or penal satisfaction. The Arminians hold the doc-
trine of the imputation of faith for, or instead of, righteousness
or perfect obedience ; and the chief scriptural ground on which
they defend this doctrine is the statement of the apostle,* that
" faith is counted or reckoned for righteousness," — TrtcrTt? \o<y{-
^erai el<; StKaioavvrjv. Their interpretation of this statement cer-
tainly could not be easily rejected, if the preposition et? could
be shown to convey anything like the idea of substitution, as
the word ybr, by which it is rendered in our version, often does.
But no such idea can be legitimately extracted from it. The
prepositions used in Scripture in reference to Christ's vicarious
atonement or satisfaction in our room and stead, for us — for our
sins — are, avn and virep, and never et?, which means towards, in
order to, with a view to, — ideas which, in some connections, may
be correctly enough expressed by the English word for, but which
cannot convey the idea of substitution. Faith being counted et<?
BLKaioavv7}v, means merely — and cannot, according to the estab-
lished usus loquendi, mean anything else than — faith being
counted in order to righteousness, or with a view to justification ;
so that this statement of the apostle does not directly inform us
how, or in what way, it is that the imputation of faith bears upon
the result of justification, — this we must learn from other scrip-
tural statements, — and most certainly does not indicate that it
bears upon this result by being, or by being regarded and ac-
cepted as, a substitute for righteousness or perfect obedience.

The Arminians commonly teach that faith — and the sincere
though imperfect obedience, or personal righteousness, as they
call it, which faith produces — is counted or accepted by God as if
it were perfect obedience, and in this way avails to our justifica-
tion, and more especially, of course, from the nature of the case,
to our acceptance and title to heaven. Now, with respect to this
doctrine, I think it is no very difficult matter to show — though
I cannot at present enter upon the proof — first, that it is not
supported by any scriptural evidence ; secondly, that it has been
devised as an interpretation of certain scriptural statements which
have some appearance of countenancing it, — an interpretation

* Rom. iv. 5, 9.
3— VOL. II. D

50 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

tliat might supersede the common Calvinistic explanation of
them, and might not contradict the general Arminian doctrine
upon the subject of justification ; and, thirdly, that it implies
a virtual admission, or indicates a sort of lurking consciousness,
of the scriptural truth of some general principles which really
establish the Calvinistic, and overturn the Arminian, doctrine on
the subject of justification, — viz., a distinction, in nature and
ground, between forgiveness and acceptance ; and the necessity,
after all, of a perfect righteousness, actual or by imputation, as the
ground or cause of acceptance and admission into the enjoyment
of God's favour. These two important principles the Arminians
formally and explicitly deny, and the denial of them constitutes
the main ground of controversy between them and the Calvinists
in this whole question. And yet their doctrine of the imputation
of faith for, or instead of, righteousness, implies something tanta-
mount to a virtual admission of both. They do not allege that
this imputation of faith for righteousness is the ground of the
pardon of our sins, for that they admit to be the vicarious suffer-
ings of Christ. If it bears, therefore, upon our justification at all,
it can be only, from the nature of the case, upon our acceptance
and admission into God's favour ; and if faith, and the imperfect
obedience which follows from it, is regarded and accepted in the
way of imputation instead of righteousness, this can be only be-
cause a higher and more perfect righteousness than is, in fact,
found in men, is in some way or other necessary — needful to be
brought in — in the adjustment of this matter, with a view to men's
eternal welfare. But though all this can be shown to be fairly im-
plied in their doctrine of the imputation of faith instead of right-
eousness, they continue explicitly to deny the necessity of a real or
actual perfect righteousness as the ground orbasis of acceptance and
a title to heaven, lest the admission of this should constrain them
to adopt the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
Papists have another way of making this argument about
the necessity of a perfect righteousness, in the use of which the
Arminians have not ventured to follow them, and which even
the Socinians hesitate to adopt. It is by asserting that, even if it
be conceded that a perfect righteousness is necessary, there is
no occasion to have recourse to Christ's righteousness ; for that
men's own inherent personal righteousness is, or may be, perfect.
Bellarmine distinctly lays down and maintains this doctrine, in

Sec. hi.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS.

opposition to the common Protestant argument for the necessity
of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, from there being no
other that is perfect. He says that our inherent righteousness
consists chiefly in faith, hope, and love, which Papists commonly
call the theological virtues ; he then proceeds to prove from Scrip-
ture that all these virtues may be perfect in men in this life, and
thus constitute them perfectly righteous. His argument, indeed,
plainly requires him to prove that these virtues are actually, and
in point of fact, perfect in man in this life. This, however, he
scarcely ventures to attempt, and merely labours to prove from
Scripture that they may he perfect, or that perfection in them
may possibly be attained ; and after having established this to his
own satisfaction,* he triumphantly concludes : " Quod si fidem,
spem, et caritatem, ac per hoc justitiam inherentem, perfectam
habere possumus, frustra laborant hseretici in asserenda imputa-
tione justitise, quasi alioqui nuUo modo simpliclter, et absolute
justi esse possimus." f The employment of such an argument
as this brings out very clearly — more so than their cautious and
guarded general statements — the real doctrine of the Church of
Rome in regard to the ground of a sinner's justification ; while,
at the same time, from its manifest contrariety to the plainest
scriptural declarations, it is not necessary to enlarge in refuting it.
It must, however, be acknowledged that the great direct and
proper proof of the Protestant doctrine of the righteousness of
Christ, given and imputed, being that to which God has a respect
or regard in justifying a sinner, is the second position which we
laid down, — viz., that the scriptural statements about Christ as
the only Saviour of sinners, and about the bearing of His suffer-
ings and obedience upon their deliverance and salvation, imply
this, and indeed can be embodied in distinct and definite proposi-
tions only by asserting this doctrine. As the Scriptures indicate
that a perfect righteousness is necessary, as the ground or basis of
our acceptance and admission to a right to life, as well as a full
satisfaction as the ground or basis of our forgiveness or exemption
from punishment, so they set before us such a perfect righteous-
ness as available for us, and actually benefiting us, in the obedience
which Christ, as our surety, rendered to all the requirements of

* Davenant, Prselectiones de Justitia
Habituali et Actuali, c. 24, pp. 325-329 ;
Allport's trauslatiou, vol. i. p. 181,

t Bellarm. De Justijicat. lib. ii.

JUSTIFICATION.

[Chap. XXI.

the law. The apostle assures us* that " God sent forth His Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons ;" where
our translation unwarrantably, by changing the construction, —
giving in the one case " to redeem," and in the other " that we
might receive," while both are expressed in the original by the same
word iW, — conceals the fact that the apostle plainly declared that
Christ was made under the law, and of course complied with all
its requirements, both as demanding punishment, and as imposing
perfect obedience, in order thereby to effect two distinct objects, —
viz., that He might deliver us from its curse, and that He might
invest us with the privileges of sons.f It makes no material dif-
ference whether we suppose that both the clauses introduced with
iW hold directly of, or are immediately connected in grammati-
cal regimen with, Christ's being made under the law, — or that the
latter clause, " might receive," holds directly of the preceding one,
viz., that "He might redeem us;" for there is nothing incon-
sistent with the teaching of the Scripture, in regarding the blessing
of forgiveness as being in some sense, in the order of nature, though
not of time, antecedent and preparatory to that of acceptance, or
the bestowal of a right to life and all the privileges of sonship.

The Scriptures represent the deliverance and salvation of men,
and all the blessings which these require or imply, as traceable not
only to Christ's sufferings and death, — i.e., to His penal satisfaction,
— but generally to Christ, and to His whole work as our surety ;
while they also represent all that He did in our nature upon earth
as vicarious, — as performed in the capacity of a surety or substi-
tute, acting in the room and stead of others. They also more
directly represent Him as our righteousness, — as made of God
unto us righteousness, — and as making many righteous by His
obedience ; statements which, in their fair and natural import,
imply that His obedience, as well as His sufferings, bear directly
and immediately upon our reception into the enjoyment of the
divine favour, and our participation in the blessings of redemption.
And if His whole obedience to the law thus bears directly and
immediately upon our enjoyment of the blessings of salvation, it

* Gal. iv. 4, 5.

t The original is, " l^a.'XiaTit'Kiv 6
BrOj rou Ttou uvToi, yivo/nsvov sx yv-

VOt-IKOi, yiUOfiiUOV VTTO uof^ov " Ivx TOVr

UTTO v6/^ou i^xyopdat}, 'iux tv^u uio6i(rixv
«xoX«/3a)j««6i'." Walsei Loci Com-
munes, De Satis factionc^ Opera, torn,
i. p. 398. Lugd. Bat. 1647.

Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 53

can be only by its being held or reckoned as performed in our
room, — by its being imputed to us, or put down to our account,
so as thereby actually to avail for our benefit.

We can form no distinct or definite conception either of the
satisfaction or the meritorious obedience of Christ, acting or ope-
rating directly upon our forgiveness and acceptance with God, ex-
cept in this icay. We must bring to bear upon them the Scripture
ideas both of substitution and imputation ; and when we do so,
we can form an intelligible and distinct conception of that which
the scriptural statements upon the subject seem so plainly to indi-
cate; while, without the introduction and application of these
scriptural ideas of substitution and imputation, the whole subject
is dark, obscure, and impalpable. We can give no distinct or
intelligible statement or explanation of how either the satisfaction
or the meritorious obedience of Christ bear upon, and affect, the
forgiveness and the acceptance of sinners, except by saying that
they were rendered in the room and stead of men, and that they
are applied to, and made available for, those in whose room they
were rendered, by being made over to them, and put down to their
account, so that they in consequence are regarded and treated as if
they had endured and done them themselves. This is what is ob-
viously suggested by the general tenor of Scripture language upon
the subject ; and it is only in this way that we can clearly and de-
finitely express the substance of what an examination of Scripture
statements forces upon our minds as the actual reality of the case.

Romanists, accordingly, while professedly arguing against the
imputation of Christ's righteousness for the justification of sin-
ners, have felt themselves constrained to make concessions which
involve the whole substance of what Protestants contend for in
this matter. Bellarmine, speaking of the views of the Refor-
mers upon this subject, says, in an often quoted passage,* " Si
solum vellent, nobis imputari Christi merita, quia nobis donata
sunt, et possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quo-
niam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis,
nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi, recta esset eorum sententia."
And Protestant divines have usually answered by saying they
just mean this, and nothing more than this, when they contend
that Christ's satisfactory sufferings and meritorious obedience are

* Bellarm. De Justijicat. lib. ii. c. vii.

JUSTIFICATION.

[Chap. XXI.

imputed to men for their justification, — viz., that the merits of
Christ are given to them, and that they, as it were, present them
to the Father as the ground of their forgiveness and acceptance.
And all that they ask of the Komanists is, that in place of evading
this concession, as Bellarmine does, by attempting to involve the
subject in obscurity by the help of the scholastic distinction of a
formal cause, they would just form a clear and definite conception
of what the statement means, and honestly apply it to the matter in
hand. If it be admitted that the meritorious obedience of Christ
is given to us, and may be presented or offered by us, to the Father,
and if men would attempt to realize what this means, they could
not fail to see that they are bound, in consistency, to hold that it was
rendered in our room and stead, — that it is, in consequence, freely
bestowed upon us, — and, being on this ground held or reckoned
as ours, becomes thus the basis on which God communicates to
us all the blessings which Christ, by His meritorious obedience,
purchased for us, and which are necessary for our eternal happiness.
It is proper to mention that there have been some, though
few, Calvinistic divines, who have rejected the distinction between
forgiveness and acceptance, and between the passive and the
active righteousness of Christ, as not being in their judgment
sufficiently established by Scripture, and have appealed to the
authority of Calvin, without any sufficient warrant, as sanction-
ing this opinion.* The Calvinistic divines who have most dis-
tinguished themselves by deviating from the orthodox doctrine
upon this subject, ai'e Piscator and Wendelinus, who both be-
longed to the German Keformed Church, the former of whom
flourished about the beginning, and the latter about the middle,
of the seventeenth century ; while, on the other hand, it is in-
teresting to notice that, until all sound doctrine was destroyed in
the Lutheran Church by the prevalence of Rationalism, these
distinctions were strenuously maintained by the most eminent
Lutheran divines. The general considerations on which Piscator
and Wendelinus based f their opinion are of no force, except upon

* The Reformers, and Theology of
the Reformation, p. 402, etc. (Edks.).

t Piscator's Letter to the French
clergy, in defence of his views on this
subject, is given in the Prsestantium
uc eruditorum virorum Epistohe Ec-

clesiastics et Theologicie, p. 121, 3d
edition. "Wendelinus, Christ. Theol.
System, lib. i. c. xxv. Thes. vii.
Vide also Whitby's Commentary on
the New Testament, at the end of
1 Corinthians.

Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS.

the assumption of principles which would overturn altogether
the scriptural doctrines of substitution and imputation. The
whole question upon the subject resolves into this, Whether we
have sufficiently clear indications of the distinction in Scripture,
— a question in the discussion of which it has been shown that
the Scripture evidence is sufficient, and that the opponents of the
distinction demand a measure of evidence in point of amount, and
of directness or explicitness, that is quite unreasonable. At the
same time, many eminent divines have been of opinion that the
controversies which have been carried on on this subject have led
some of the defenders of the truth to give a prominence and an
importance to this distinction beyond what Scripture warrants,
and scarcely in keeping with the general scope and spirit of its
statements. There is no trace of this tendency to excess in the
admirably cautious and accurate declarations of our Confession
of Faith ; and the danger of yielding to it, and, at the same time,
the importance of maintaining the whole truth upon the point as
sanctioned by Scripture, are very clearly and ably enforced by
Turretine.*

Papists and other opponents of the truth upon this subject
usually represent an imputed righteousness as if it were a putative,
fictitious, or imaginary righteousness. But this representation
has no foundation in anything that was held by the Reformers,
or that can be shown to be involved in or deducible from their
doctrine. The righteousness of Christ, including the whole of
His perfect and meritorious obedience to the law, as well as His
suffering, was a great and infinitely important reality. It was
intended to effect and secure the salvation of all those whom God
had chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. It is
in due time, and in accordance with the arrangements which God
in His infinite wisdom has laid down, bestowed upon each of them,
through his union to Christ by faith, not in any mere fiction of
law, but in actual deed ; and being thus really, and not merely
putatively or by a fiction, bestowed upon them, it is of course
held or reckoned as theirs, and thus becomes the ground — the full

* Turret. De Officio Chrlsti Media-
torio, Loc. xiv. Q. xiii. sees. xi. xii.
For a full discussion of this topic, see
De Moor, Comment, in Marck. Com-
pend. cap. xx. sec. xvii. torn. iii. pp.

959-77. Gerhard. Loci Communes.
Loc. xvii. c. ii. sees. Ivii.-lxiv., in
Cotta's edition, torn. vii. pp. 61-72 ;
folio, torn. iii. pp. 485-95.

56 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

and adequate ground — on which God further bestows upon them
the forgiveness of all their sins, and a right to the heavenly in-
heritance, and to all the privileges of sonship ; so that they feel
it ever thereafter to be at once their duty and their privilege, on
the ground of clear and definite conceptions of what Christ has
purchased and merited for them, to ascribe all that they are, and
have, and hope for, to Plim who not only washed them from their
sins in His own blood, but has also made them kings and priests
unto God and His Father.

Sec. 4. — Justification hy Faith alone.

The justification of sinners — i.e., the actual forgiveness of
their sins, and the acceptance of their persons, or the bestowal
upon them of a right and title to life — is ascribed in Scripture
to God, or to Ilis grace ; it is ascribed to Christ, and to what
He has done and suffered in our room and stead; and it is
ascribed to faith. The propositions, then, that men are justified
by God's grace, that they are justified by Christ's sufferings and
merits, and that they are justified by faith, are all true, and
should all be understood and believed. A full exposition of the
Scripture doctrine of justification requires that all these proposi-
tions be interpreted in their true scriptural sense, and that they
be combined together in their just relation, so as to form a har-
monious whole. It is to the third and last of these fundamental
propositions, constituting the scriptural doctrine of justification,
that we have now briefly to advert, — viz., that men are justified
by faith.

This proposition is so frequently asserted in Scripture in ex-
press terms, that it is not denied by any who acknowledge the
divine authority of the Bible. But the discussion of the sense
in which the proposition is to be understood, and the way and
manner in which this truth is to be connected and combined with
the other departments of scriptural doctrine upon the subject
of justification, occupied, as we have already explained, a most
important place in the controversies which were carried on be-
tween the Reformers and the Eomanists. The disputes upon
this subject involved the discussion of three different questions,
— viz.. First, What is the nature of justifying faith, or what is
the definition or description of that faith to which justification

Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 57

is ascribed in Scripture ? Secondly, Whether there be any-
thing else in men themselves that concurs or co-operates with
their faith in the matter of their justification, — anything else
in tliem that is represented as standing in the same relation
to their justification as faith does'? Thirdly, In what way,
by what process, or by what sort of agency or instrumentality,
is it that faith justifies ; and how is the agency or instrumen-
tality, that is assigned to faith in the matter of justification, to
be connected and combined with the causality assigned in the
matter to the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ
imputed ?

The first question, then, respected the nature of justifying
faith, or the proper definition or description of that faith to
which in Scripture justification is ascribed. I have already
explained that, upon this point, the differences between the
Reformers and the Romanists lay in this, that the Romanists,
defined faith to be assensus, and placed its seat in the intellect ;,
and that the Reformers defined it to be Jiducia, and placed its
seat in the will ; while, at the same time, I mentioned that a
very considerable diversity of sentiment had prevailed among
orthodox Protestant divines in subsequent times as to the way
in which justifying faith should be defined and described, and
expressed my opinion that some diversity of sentiment upon this
point was not precluded by anything laid down in the standards
of our church. I shall merely make a few observations regard-
ing it, premising that this is one of the topics where, I think,
it must be admitted that greater precision and accuracy, and
a more careful and exact analysis, than were usually manifested
by the Reformers in treating of it, were introduced into the
exposition and discussion of the subject by the great systematic
divines of the seventeenth century.*

Romanists define justifying faith to be the mere assent of the
understanding to the whole truth of God revealed ; and in this
view of its nature and import they have been followed by a class
of divines who are generally known in modern times, and in this
country, under the name of Saudemanians, and wdio have com-
monly been disposed to claim to themselves the credit of pro-
pounding much clearer and simpler views of this subject, and of

* See The Reformers, and Theology of the Reformation, p. 3, etc. — Edks.

JUSTIFICATION.

[Chap. XXI.

scriptural doctrine generally, than those who give a somewhat
different definition or description of faith. Those who define
faith to be the mere assent of the understanding to truth re-
vealed, of course regard everything else that may be in any way
necessary to justification, or that can be proved to exist invariably
in justified men, as the fruit, or consequence, or result of faith ;
while they maintain that nothing but the mere belief of truth
revealed enters into its proper nature, or should form any part of
the definition that ought to be given of what faith is. And the
Protestant defenders of this view of the nature of justifying faith
differ from its Popish advocates chiefly in this — which, however,
is a difference of great importance — that the Protestants regard
everything else that may be connected with justification, or that
must exist in justified men, as the invariable and necessary fruit
or consequence of the belief of the truth ; while the Romanists,
as we have seen, maintain that true faith — that faith "which
justifies whenever justification takes place — may exist, without
producing any practical result, and of course without justifying.
We have already proved this, in regard to the Romanists, by
quotations from Bellarmine ; and we may add, that so confidently
does he maintain this position, that he founds upon it as an argu-
ment, to prove that faith alone does not justify.

The great majority of the most eminent and most orthodox
Protestant divines* have held this view of the nature of justifying
faith to be defective ; i.e., they have regarded it as not including
all that ouo"ht to be included in the definition of faith. While
the Reformers thought justifying faith to be most properly de-
fined hj Jiducia, trust or confidence, they do not, of course, deny
that it contained or comprehended notitia and assensus, knowledge
and assent. They all admitted that it is the duty of men, — and, in
a sense, their first and most fundamental duty, — in order to their
salvation, to understand and believe what God had revealed; and
that the knowledge and belief of the truth revealed — of what God
has actually said in His word — must be the basis and foundation
of all the other steps they take in the matter of their salvation, and
the source or cause, in some sense, of all the necessary changes that

* Le Blanc's Theses Theohgicx Se-
danenses, pp. 204-248. O'Brien on
Justification, notes 1, 2, 3, 1st edi-

tion; notes A and B, 2d edition.

Euiis.

Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 59

are effected upon them. It is by the truth which He reveals, that
God brings Plimself into contact with His rational creatures ; and
we learn from His word, that the instrumentality of the truth re-
vealed is employed by Him in all His dealings with them, and in
all the changes which He effects upon them, with a view to their
salvation. Now the direct and proper correlative acts to truth
revealed by God to His rational creatures, are, understanding its
meaning, and assenting to it, or believing it, as real and certain ;
and these, of course, are acts of the intellect. The knowledge
and belief of the truth revealed are therefore the primary and
fundamental duties incumbent upon men, and are essential parts
or elements of justifying and saving faith. Were we in a con-
dition in which we were at liberty to determine this question
purely upon philosophical grounds, and had no other materials
for deciding it, it might be contended — and I do not well see
how, in these circumstances, the position could be disproved — that
the knowledge and belief of the doctrines revealed in Scripture
must certainly and necessarily lead men to trust in Christ, and to
submit to His authority, and thus produce or effect everything
necessary for justification and salvation; and that, on this ground,
justifying faith might be properly defined to be the belief of the
truth revealed ; while everything else, which some might be dis-
posed to comprehend under it, might be rather regarded as its
invariable and necessary result or consequence. The question,
however, cannot be legitimately/ settled in this way ; for indeed
the question itself properly is, In what sense is the faith to which
justification is ascribed, used in Scripture? or what is it which
the Scripture includes in, or comprehends under, the word faith?
And this question can be settled only by an examination of the
passages in which the word faith and its cognates occur, — an
examination on which we do not propose at present to enter.

It can scarcely be disputed that the word faith is used in Scrip-
ture in a variety of senses, and more especially that it is employed
there in a wider and in a more limited signification, as if it were
used sometimes to designate a whole, and at other times some one
or more of the parts or elements of which this whole is composed.
It is on this account that it has always been found so difficult to
give anything like a fornjal definition of faith in its scriptural
acceptation, — a definition that should include all that the Scrip-
ture comprehends under faith itself, as proper to it, and nothing

GO JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.

more. At the same time, while it is admitted that faith is some-
times used in Scripture in the sense of mere behef or assent to
truth, in such a sense as would require us, loere it received as
the onlif and complete dejinition of faith, to regard trust or con-
fidence in Christ, receiving and embracing Him, rather as conse-
quences of faith than as parts or acts of faith, I think it has
been proved by Protestant divines, in opposition to the Romanists,
that trust or confidence, which is an act of the will, does enter into
the ordinary and full idea of scriptural faith ; and that the faith
by which men are said to be justified, includes in it (and not
merely produces) something more than the belief of truths or
doctrines — even trust or confidence in a person — in Him who has
purchased for us all the blessings of redemption, who has all these
blessings in Himself, and who, in His word, is offering Himself
and all these blessings to us, and inviting us to accept them. It
may be said to be more correct, metaphysically, to represent this
trust or confidence in Christ, this receiving and resting upon Hiiu
for salvation, as the fruit, or result, or consequence of faith, in
its strict and proper sense : and no doubt it is a result or conse-
quence of knowing and assenting to the truths revealed in Scrip-
ture concerning Him, and concerning this salvation which He has
purchased and is offering ; but it is also true — i.e., I think this
has been proved — that Scripture represents the faith by which
men are justified as including or containing that state of mind
which can be described only by such words as trust and confidence,
and as involving or comprehending that act, or those acts, which
are described as accepting, embracing, receiving, and resting
upon Christ and His work for salvation. There is nothing in this
scriptural view of the matter — nothing in this scriptural use of
language — which in the least contradicts any sound metaphysical
])rinciples about the connection between the operations of the un-
derstanding and the will : for the substance of the whole matter
is just this, that the Scripture does not ordinarily and generally
call that faith which is descriptive of a state of mind that is
merely intellectual, and which does not comprehend acts that in-
volve an exercise of the powers of the will ; and, more especially,
it does not represent men as justified by faith, or as possessed of
the faith which justifies, until they have been enabled — no doubt
under the influence, or as the result, of scriptural views of Christ
and His work — to exercise trust and confidence in Him as their

Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 61

Saviour ; to accept, to lay hold of, and to apply to themselves, the
blessings of forgiveness and acceptance, which He has purchased
for them, and is otfering to them in the word of the truth of the
gospel.

But I need not dwell longer upon this point, and must proceed
to advert to the second question, viz., Whether faith alone justi-
fies ; or whether there be anything else in men themselves that is
represented in Scripture as the cause, in any sense, why men
individually receive forgiveness and acceptance at the hand of
God ? It was the unanimous doctrine of the Reformers, and
one to which they attached very great importance, that men are
justified by faith alone ; not meaning that the faith which jus-
tified them existed alone, or solitarily ; but, on the contrary,
maintaining that this faith " is ever accompanied with all other
saving graces :" not meaning that nothing else was required of
men in order to their being forgiven ; for they believed that, in
order that we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us
for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto life as well as faith
in Jesus Christ ; but meaning this, that there is nothing else in
men themselves to which their justification is in Scripture ascribed,
— nothing else required of them and existing in them, which
stands in the same relation to justification as their faith does, or
exerts any causality, or efficiency, or instrumentality in producing
the result of their being justified.

The Council of Trent openly denied this fundamental doc-
trine of the Reformers, and maintained that there were six other
virtues, as they call them, which all concurred with faith in ob-
taining for men the grace of justification. They did not indeed
assign to these virtues, or even to faith itself, any power of justi-
fying, properly so called, but only that of preparing or disposing
men to justification. They did, however — and that is the only
point with which we have at present to do — deny the Protestant
doctrine, that faith is the only thing in men themselves by which
they are justified ; and they denied this, in the way of ascribing
to these six other virtues the very same relation to justification,
and the very same kind of influence in producing or procuring
it, which they ascribe to faith : and this was very distinctly and
explicitly brought out in the quotations I have already made from
Bellarmine. These six virtues are, — fear, hope, love, penitence,)
a purpose of receiving the sacrament, and a purpose of leading

62 ' JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.

a life of obedience ; and Bellarmine, and other defenders of the
doctrine of the Church of Rome, labour to prove from Scripture
that these qualities, or states of mind and feeling, are represented
there as procuring or obtaining for men the forgiveness of their
sins, and the enjoyment of God's favour. It is certain that there
is not one of them which is ever, in express terms, said in Scrip-
ture to justify men, or by which men are said to be justified,
while men are frequently and most explicitly said to be justified by
faith ; and this single consideration may be fairly regarded as by
itself a proof that at least they do not stand in the same relation
to justification as faith does, — that it holds a place, and exerts an
influence, in the justification of sinners, which do not belong to
any of them. All that can be proved from Scripture about these
things, speaking of them generally, is, first, that they all exist in,
and are wrought by God upon, those men whom He justifies ;
and, secondly, that they are all duties which He requires of men ;
and that, of course, upon both these grounds they are in some
sense pleasing and acceptable to Him. These positions can be
proved ; but the proof of them affords no ground whatever for
the conclusion that men are justified by these graces, or that they
exert any influence in procuring or obtaining for men the forgive-
ness of their sins and the enjoyment of God's favour ; for it is
manifest that God may require, as a matter of duty, or bestow as
a matter of grace, what may exert no influence, and have no real
eflncient bearing upon other gifts which He also bestows.

Indeed, it may be justly contended that no gift or favour which
God bestows, can, simply as such, exert any real influence in pro-
curing for men other favours at His hand. God may, indeed, in
the exercise of His wisdom, resolve, with a view to general and
ulterior objects, to bestow His gifts or favours in a certain order,
and with something like mutual dependence between them ; and
we may be able to see something of the suitableness and wisdom
of this arrangement ; but this affords no ground for our asserting
that the one first conferred exerted any influence in procuring or
obtaining for us the one that was subsequently bestowed. As the
discharge of duties which God requires of men, these virtues are,
in so far as they may be really in conformity with what He
enjoins, agreeable to His will, pleasing and acceptable in His
sight ; but this does not prove that they can procure for men
the forgiveness of their sins, or a right or title to eternal life.

Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 63

The fact, then, that these things are represented in Scripture as
required by God of men, and as conferred by Him as graces or
favours upon all those whom He justifies, — and this is all that
the Scripture proofs adduced by Romanists, in discussing this
subject, establish, — affords no evidence that men are justified by
them, or that they have any place or influence in procuring or
obtaining for men forgiveness and acceptance.

But perhaps it may be said that the same considerations
apply equally to faith, which is also a duty required by God, and
a grace bestowed by Him. We admit that they do ; but then
we answer, first, that we assert, and undertake to prove, as will
be afterwards explained, that though faith is both a duty com-
manded and a grace bestowed, it is not in either of these capaci-
ties, or simply as such, that it justifies, but solely as the instrument
or hand by which men receive and lay hold of the righteousness
of Christ ; and, secondly, that the object and the practical result
of these considerations are not directly to disprove or exclude the
justifying efficacy of these virtues, but merely to show that the
inference in support of their alleged justifying efficacy — which is
based solely upon the fact that they are represented as existing in
all justified men, being conferred by God and required by Him —
is unfounded. Men are never said, in Scripture, to be justified by
them ; and the only process by which it is attempted to show that
any justifying efficacy attaches to them, is by this inference from
other things said about them in Scripture ; and if this inference
can be shown to be unfounded, — and this, we think, the conside-
|rations above adduced accomplish, — then the argument which we
are opposing falls to the ground. The state of tlie case is very
different with respect to faith. We do not need to prove, by an
inferential process of reasoning from Scripture, that faith jus-
tifies ; for this is frequently asserted in express terms, and thus
stands proved without any argument or inference. We have
merely to ansicer the inferential process by which it is attempted
to prove, in the absence of all direct scriptural authority, that men
are justified by these virtues as well as by faith ; and having done
this, we then fall back again upon the position, that men are
expressly said in Scripture to be justified by faith, while it cannot
be shown, either directly or by inference, that they are repre-
sented as being justified by any of tliose virtues to which
Romanists assign a co-ordinate place with faith in the matter.

64 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

Not only, however, are men said to be justified by faitli, while
they are not said, directly or by implication, to be justified by
anything else existing in themselves, — they are also said to be
justified by faith without works or deeds of law. This, indeed,
is the great doctrine which the Apostle Paul lays down, and
formally and elaborately proves, in the Epistles to the Romans
and the Galatians ; and no effort has been spared by Romanists,
and other opponents of evangelical truth, to pervert the apostle's
statements into an accordance with their views. This of course
opens up a wide field of critical discussion, upon which we do not
enter. The great subject of controversy is, What is it that the
apostle intended to exclude from any co-operation or joint efficacy
with faith in the matter of the justification of sinners, under the
name of works or deeds of law ? Now it was contended by all
the Reformers, that, according to the natural and proper import
of the apostle's words, and the general scope and object of his
argument, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, he must have
intended to exclude from all joint or co-ordinate efficacy with
faith' in the matter of justification, all obedience which men did
or could render to the requirements of the law under which they
were placed, whatever that might be ; while it has been alleged
by Romanists, and other enemies of the doctrine of gratuitous
justification, that he meant merely to exclude, as some say, the
works of the ceremonial law ; others, obedience to the Mosaic
law in general ; and others, all works performed, or obedience
rendered to the divine law, by men, in the exercise of their
natural and unaided powers, previously to the reception of divine
grace, and the production of justifying faith.

The opinion which would limit the apostle's exclusion of
works from co-operating with faith in the justification of sinners,
to the observance of the requirements of the ceremonial law, is
too obviously inconsistent with the whole tenor and scope of his
statements, to be entitled to much consideration. It is not denied
that there are statements in the apostle's writings upon the sub-
ject of justification, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians, in
which he has chiefly in view those who enforced the observance
of the Mosaic law as necessary to forgiveness and acceptance ;
and is showing, in opposition to them, that the obedience which
might be rendered to it had no influence in the matter, and was
wholly excluded from any joint efficacy with faith in obtaining

Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 65

justification ; while it is contended that, even in the Epistle to the
Galatians, he argues for the exclusion of the observance of the
Mosaic law, from the matter of justification, upon principles and
grounds which have a wider and more general bearing, and which
equally exclude all mere obedience to law, as such. And in the
Epistle to the Romans — where, after having proved the guilt
and sinfulness of all men, both Jews and Gentiles, he addressed
himself equally to both classes — his object evidently required,
and his statements plainly imply, that it was law, as such, under
whatever form, and obedience to law, by whomsoever rendered,
and from whatsoever principle proceeding, that are excluded from
any influence in procuring the justification of sinners.

The Romanists generally allege that the apostle meant to
exclude only works done, or obedience to law rendered, by men's
natural and unaided powers, before they receive the grace of
God, and are enabled to exercise faith ; and thus they leave room
for bringing in their six other virtues, which they ascribe to the
operation of God's grace, and regard as springing from faith.
This is perhaps, upon the whole, the most plausible expedient for
perverting the apostle's meaning, at least so far as the Epistle to
the Romans is concerned ; but it is liable to insuperable objections.
It is wholly unwarranted and gratuitous. There is nothing in the
apostle's statements to suggest it, — nothing in his argument, or in
the principles on which it is based, to require it ; nothing in any
part of Scripture to oblige or entitle us to force upon him an idea
which seems not to have been present to his own mind. The dis-
tinction between these two kinds or classes of works has evidently
been devised — i.e., so far as its application to this matter is con-
cerned, for in itself it is a real and important distinction — in order
to serve a purpose ; and its only real foundation is, that some men
have chosen to believe and assert that these virtues or graces, since
they exist in justified men, must have some share in procuring
their justification. And while the distinction is thus, in this appli-
cation of it, wholly unwarranted and gratuitous, it can be shown
to be positively inconsistent with the scope of the apostle's argu-
ment, which implies that any mere obedience rendered to any law,
— any mere compliance with any of God's requirements, in what-
ever source originating, on whatever principles based, — viewed
simply as such, would, if introduced into the matter of a sinner's
justification, as having any efficacy in procuring or obtaining it,

3— VOL. II. E

66 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

be inconsistent at once with the purely gratuitous character of
God's act in pardoning and accepting, and with the place or in-
fluence assigned to faith in the matter. Grace or gratuitousness,
and faith, are described as not only consistent, but as fully and
admirably harmonizing with each other ; while obedience to law,
so far as concerns the matter of justification, is represented as a
principle of an opposite character or tendency, not only having
no influence in procuring justification, but tending — so far as it
may be introduced into this matter, and relied upon in connection
with it — to exclude the operation of the principles on which God
has been pleased to regulate this subject, and to frustrate His
gracious design. This is the doctrine taught by Paul, clearly
implied in many of his particular statements, and in the general
scope and substance of his argument ; and there is nothing what-
ever in any part of his writings that requires or entitles us to
modify this view of his meaning.

One main objection that has been adduced against receiving
this interpretation of Paul's statements as the true doctrine of
Scripture on the subject of justification, is, that the Apostle
James seems to teach an opposite doctrine, when, in the second
chapter of his epistle, he asserts that men are justified by works,
and not by faith only ; and that Abraham and Rahab were justi-
fied by works. This question of the reconciliation of Paul and
James upon the subject of justification has also given rise to much
interesting critical discussion. I shall only state, in general, that
I am persuaded that the two following positions have been estab-
lished regarding it: — First, that the Apostle James did not intend
to discuss, and does not discuss, the subject of justification in the
sense in which it is so fully expounded in Paul's Epistles to the
Romans and Galatians ; that he does not state anything about the
grounds or principles on which — the way and manner in which —
sinners are admitted to forgiveness and the favour of God ; and
that his great general object is simply to set forth the real ten-
dency and result of that true living faith which holds so important
a place in everything connected with the salvation of sinners.
The truth of this position is very clearly indicated by the terms
in which James introduces the subject in the fourteenth verse :
" What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath
faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" or rather the
faith, for the original has the article, rj 7ria-TL<; ; i.e., the faith which

Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 67

he says he has, or professes to have, but really has not, — can that
faith save him ? This is the subject which alone the apostle pro-
posed to discuss, and there is nothing in the following statements
sufficient to show that any other subject than this was introduced
in the course of the discussion, or that the apostle gave, or in-
tended to give, any deliverance whatever upon the grounds or
reasons of the justification of a sinner before God, or upon the
way and manner in which he obtains forgiveness and acceptance.
Secondly, that the justification of which James speaks, and which
he ascribes to works, refers to something in men's history poste-
rior to that great era when their sins are forgiven, and they are
admitted to the enjoyment of God's favour, — i.e., to the proof or
manifestation of the reality and efficacy of their faith to them-
selves and their fellow-men. This position may be shown to be
virtually involved in, or clearly deducible from, the former one,
and has, besides, its own proper and peculiar evidence, — espe-
cially in the application which the apostle makes of the case of
Abraham, in saying that he was justified by works, when he had
offered up Isaac his son upon the altar ; for it is quite certain,
from the history of Abraham's life, that, many years before he
was thus justified by works, he had, as the Apostle Paul tells
us, been justified by faith, — i.e., had had his sins forgiven, and
had been admitted fully and unchangeably into the favour and
friendship of God, and had thus passed that great crisis on which
the eternal happiness of every sinner depends, and the nature,
grounds, and means of which it was Paul's sole object to expound
in all that he has written upon the subject of justification. So
evident is the posteriority of the justification by works, of which
James speaks, to the proper forgiveness and acceptance of sinners,
that many Popish writers — in this, manifesting greater candour
than that large body of Episcopalian writers who have followed
the system of interpretation set forth in Bishop Bull's Harmonia
Apostolica — regard James's justification as applying, not to the
Jirst, but to what they call the second, justification, or that process
by which a justified person is made more righteous.

This notion of theirs about a first and second justification —
comprehending, as they do, under that word both forgiveness and
sanctification — is utterly unfounded, and tends to pervert the
whole doctrine of Scripture upon the subject. For the Scripture
teaches that, while God, by His grace, makes justified men pro-

68 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

gressively more holy, He " continues to forgive" the sins which
they commit, on the very same grounds, and through the very
same process, by which the forgiveness of all their past sins was
originally bestowed upon them. But still the application of this
notion to the interpretation of James's statements upon the sub-
ject, shows a somewhat juster appreciation than many of the
Protestant corrupters of the doctrine of justification have ex-
hibited of the difficulty of extracting anything from James that
could contradict and overturn Paul's great doctrine of justification
by faith alone, without deeds of law.

If these two positions can be established, the apparent dis-
crepancy between the apostles is removed : each asserts his own
doctrine without contradicting the other ; and we remain not only
warranted, but bound, to hold as absolute and unqualified, Paul's
exclusion of works, or of mere obedience to law, from the matter
of a sinner's justification before God ; and to regard his doctrine
that men are justified by faith, without deeds of law, as meaning,
what it naturally and obviously imports, that men are justified by
faith alone, or that there is nothing else in them which concurs or
co-operates with faith in procuring or obtaining their forgiveness
and acceptance. But here again it may be alleged that faith itself
is a work or act of obedience ; and that therefore, upon this inter-
pretation of the apostles' statements, it too must be excluded from
any influence or efficacy in justification. This leads us to the con-
sideration of the third question, as to the way and manner in which
faith justifies, or the place it holds in the matter of justification ;
and a brief exposition of this topic will not only solve the objec-
tion that has now been stated, but afford additional confirmation
to the great Protestant doctrine, that men are justified by faith
only ; and at the same time lead to an explanation of the relation
that subsists among the great doctrines, that men are justified by
God's grace, that they are justified by Christ's righteousness, and
that they are justified by faith alone.

Sec. 5. — Office of Faith in Justifying.

We have good and sufficient grounds in Scripture for main-
taining— first, that the justification of a sinner is a purely gratui-
tous act of God, to the exclusion of all merit or desert on the part
of the sinner himself; secondly, that the imputed righteousness

Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 69

of Christ is the sole ground, basis, or reason of the divine pro-
cedure in justifying a sinner, — the only thing to which God has
respect or regard, as that on account of which He acts, in be-
stowing upon any one pardon and acceptance ; and, thirdly, that
faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing in men themselves, to the
exclusion of all works, or mere obedience to law, to which their
justification is ascribed, or which is represented as exerting, in
any sense, anything like a causality or efficiency in obtaining for
them pardon and acceptance at God's hand. And if Scripture
fully sanctions each of these three positions separately, then the
whole doctrine of Scripture upon the subject can be brought out
and set forth, only by combining them all into one general state-
ment, and by unfolding the harmony and relations of the different
truths of which this general statement is made up.

The objection adduced against the entire exclusion of works
from the matter of justification — one of the elements involved in
the third of these positions — that faith itself is a work, and that,
therefore, if the exclusion is to be strict and absolute, faith, being
a work, must be excluded, it is easy enough to answer. Faith, of
course, cannot be excluded ; for justification is frequently and most
expressly ascribed to it ; and therefore, had we nothing else to say
upon the subject, we would be fully entitled to make faith an ex-
ception to the apostle's unqualified exclusion of works : because,
to suppose that it was not to be excepted, would involve the apostle
in a self-contradiction, too gross and palpable to be ascribed to
any man without absolute necessity ; while, at the same time, by
admitting, upon this ground, that faith must necessarily be ex-
cepted from his exclusion of works, we would be under no obliga-
tion, in sound argument, to admit of any other exception to the
exclusion, unless as conclusive a reason could be brought forward
for excepting it as exists for excepting faith. The apostle says,
with reference to another subject,* "But when He saith, All
things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted
which did put all things under Him." So we say, upon a similar
principle, that when deeds of law are excluded, faith must be
excepted; for the very same statement which excludes them,
expressly includes it, — that statement being, that men are justified
by faith without deeds of law.

* 1 Cor. XV. 27.

70 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

As to the allegation which may be said to constitute the objec-
tion, viz., that if we are to except from the exclusion of works, faith,
which is a work, we may except other works also, the answer is
obvious and conclusive, — viz., that any proposed exception to the
apostle's general and unlimited exclusion of works must be indi-
vidually warranted and established by scriptural evidence, — that
we might possibly admit other exceptions, if good scriptural evi-
dence could be adduced in support of them, — but that, in point
of fact, no good reason has been, or can be, adduced in support
of any other exception to the exclusion but faith. This is quite
a sufficient answer to the objection ; and as a mere question of
dialectics, nothing more need be said about it. But then, as we
have already intimated, it suggests some further considerations
of importance as to the way and manner in which faith justifies,
and the relation which subsists among the great truths which go
to make up the scriptural doctrine of justification.

It is manifest, not only from Paul's particular statements
in discussing this subject, but from the general scope of his
argument, and the principles on which it is all based, that his
exclusion of works or deeds of law was intended to be very full
and complete ; and that, therefore, the more nearly we can make
it absolute, as he in terminis represents it, the more nearly we
approach to the views which filled his mind. Now the general
doctrine, upon this subject, of those Protestant divines who have
maintained the theology of the Reformation, has been this, that
though faith cannot be excluded from the justification of a sinner,
and though faith is a work, — i.e., an act of obedience rendered
by men, and, at the same time, a grace conferred on them, and
wrought in them by God, — ^yet it is not as a work that it justifies,
or is concerned in the matter of a sinner's justification, but in a
different capacity or relation, — viz., simply as the instrument of
apprehending or receiving the righteousness of Christ. And it
is manifest that, if good evidence can be adduced in support of
this view of the place which faith holds, or the influence which
it exerts in the justification of sinners, this must be an additional
confirmation of the great Protestant doctrine, that men are
justified by faith alone, without deeds of law, in its obvious and
literal import, while it will also contribute to elucidate the whole
subject of justification.

Now it is admitted that there are no statements contained in

Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 71

Scripture which professedly and directly explain, in any very
formal or categorical manner, how it is that faith acts or operates
in the justification of a sinner ; but it is contended that there are
sufficient materials in Scripture to establish satisfactorily the com-
mon Protestant doctrine upon this subject. There is not much
that is very definite to be learned upon this precise point, — viz.,
as to the way in which faith justifies, — from the general and
fundamental declaration, that men are justified by faith. The
forms in which this is expressed in Scripture are these, Trto-ret, e/c
7rto-Te&)9, and hia Trtcrrea)? ; in Latin, fide, ex fide, and per fidem.
These expressions all indicate, in general, that some sort of cau-
sality, or efficiency, or instrumentality, is ascribed to faith in the
matter of justification, without specifying what, — though the fact
that men are never said in Scripture to be justified, hia Tna-Tiv,
propter fidenij on account of faith, may, when taken in connection
with the assertion that they are justified freely or gratuitously,
and that works or deeds of law, mere obedience to requirements,
are excluded, be fairly regarded as amply sufficient to disprove
the common Popish doctrine that faith justifies on account of its
worth, dignity, or excellence, — meriting God's favour ex congruo,
though not ex condigno. This may accordingly be received as our
negative position as to the way and manner in which faith justi-
fies ; and some direct and positive light is thrown upon the subject
by those scriptural statements which represent faith as a looking
to Christ, receiving Him, apprehending Him, laying hold of Him.
These scriptural repi'esentations naturally and obviously suggest
the idea that the essence of that which men do when they believe
in Christ, in so far as the matter of their justification is concerned,
is, that they receive or accept of Christ, held out to them, or
offered to them ; and that the proper, direct, and immediate effect
of their faith in Christ, is, that they in this way become possessed
of Him, and of the blessings which are in Him, — i.e., the blessings
which He purchased, and which are necessary to their salvation.
If this, then, be the process — as the scriptural representations
referred to plainly indicate — by which men individually become
possessed of the blessings which Christ purchased and merited for
them, including pardon and acceptance, then it plainly follows
that faith justifies, as it is put by Turretine,* " non proprie et per

* Turret., Locus xvl Q. vii.

72 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

se," sed " tantum relative et organice ; " or, as the mean or instru-
ment of receiving, or laying hold of, Christ's righteousness.

We are thus led to consider more particularly what we have
more than once adverted to, — viz., the relation between the way
and manner in which faith justifies, and the other truths taught
in Scripture concerning the causes, grounds, or reasons of a sin-
ner's justification. If men are justified freely or gratuitously by
God's grace, this implies that neither faith nor anything else can
have any meritorious efficacy in procuring justification; as the
Council of Trent admits in words, but in words so chosen of
purpose, as to leave a liberty to Romanists — of which, as we have
seen, they generally take advantage — to maintain that faith and
half a dozen of other virtues, as they call them, do merit justifica-
tion, of congruity, though not of condignity. If Christ's righteous-
ness imputed be that to which God has direct or immediate re-
spect or regard in each case in which He justifies a sinner, then it
follows that faith can justify only as being the cause, or means, or
instrument by or through which God bestows Christ's righteous-
ness upon men, and by or through which they receive or become
possessed of it. In short, the whole doctrine of Scripture upon
the subject must be taken into account ; its different parts must
be all embraced in a general declaration ; their relations must be
brought out ; and the necessity of combining and harmonizing the
different truths taught regarding it may legitimately modify, if
necessary^ the precise way and manner in which each is to be
stated, explained, and applied. Accordingly we find, in point of
fact, that men's views of the place which faith holds, and the
influence which it exerts, in the justification of sinners, are usually
determined by the views they take of the other departments of
this subject, and especially of the grounds or reasons on which
God's act in justification is based.

This important observation is thus expressed by Dr. Owen in
the third chapter of his great work on Justification : " When men
have fixed their apprehensions about the principal matters in
controversy, they express what concerneth the use of faith in an
accommodation thereunto." * " Thus it is with all who affirm
faith to be either the instrument, or the condition, or the causa sine
qua non, or the preparation and disposition of the subject, or a

* Owen on Justification, vol. v. p. 107, Goold's ed. ; xi. 134, Orme's ed.

Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 73

meritorious cause by way of condecency or congruity, in and of our
justification. For all these notions of the use of faith are suited
and accommodated unto the opinions of men, concerning the
nature and principal causes of justification." There are five views
mentioned here by Dr. Owen of the use of faith in justification,
or of the way and manner in which it justifies, — ^viz., first, as an
instrument ; secondly, as a condition ; thirdly, as a causa sine qua
non; fourthly, as preparing and disposing men to receive justifi-
cation ; and, fifthly, as meriting it of congruity. The first view,
which represents faith as the instrument or instrumental cause
of justification — z.e., as justifying simply as it is the appointed
means by or through which men individually receive or lay hold
of the righteousness of Christ — was that which was taken by all
the Reformers, and which has been ever since held by almost all
Protestants who have honestly and cordially embraced the theology
of the Reformation. The fourth, which represents faith as justi-
fying, inasmuch as it prepares and disposes men to justification,
is that which is explicitly taught by the Council of Trent ; while,
along loith this, the fifth — viz., that it justifies because it merits
justification ex congruo — is also held, as we have seen, by most
Romish writers, not indeed with the express sanction, but with
the connivance — the intended connivance — of the council, and
without contradicting any of its decisions.

As, however, Romanists ascribe this preparatory, dispositive,
and meritorious efficacy with reference to justification, equally to
other virtues besides faith, and yet cannot dispute that, in Scrip-
ture, faith has a special and peculiar prominence assigned to it in
the matter, I may, following out and applying Dr. Owen's idea,
state that, in accordance with their fundamental principles, — viz.,
that an inherent personal righteousness, infused into us by God's
grace, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, is the
formal cause, the proper ground, or reason of our justification, —
they explain the special prominence, the peculiar influence, ascribed
to faith in the matter, by saying that faith justifies, inasmuch as
it " is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the
root of all justification," — i.e., the chief source from which all holi-
ness and obedience spring.* The second and third views of the
uses of faith, mentioned by Dr. Owen, — viz., that it justifies, as,

* Con. Trident., sess. vi. c. viii.

JUSTIFICATION.

[Chap. XXI.

being the condition, or the causa sine qua non of justification, —
are capable of a variety of explanations, and have been main-
tained, or at least admitted, by persons who hold different opinions,
more or less scriptural, or the reverse, concerning the grounds or
reasons of justification, which are explained- at some length in
the chapter of Dr. Owen to which I have referred. Some writers
distinguish between a condition and a causa sine qua non in this
matter ; and others identify them, or explain the one by the
other. Different meanings have also been attached to each of
these expressions ; and according as they are explained more
strictly or more loosely, different classes of divines have been
disposed, according to the opinions they held upon other depart-
ments of the general subject, to admit or reject the use of them,
as descriptive of the place or function of faith in this matter.

The substance of the truth upon the point — speaking histori-
cally— may be embodied in the two following propositions. First,
orthodox divines, who have held the imputed righteousness of
Christ to be the proper ground or reason of a sinner's justifica-
tion, have generally — while greatly preferring the use of the
word instrument or instrumental cause, as most correctly and
appropriately expressing the substance of what Scripture suggests
upon this point — admitted that there is a sense in which faith may
be said to be the condition, or causa sine qua non, of justification.
An explanation of the sense in which the employment of these ex-
pressions is, and is not, consistent with scriptural views in regard to
the ground of justification, will be found in Dr. Owen's Treatise,*
and in Turretine.f In our Confession of Faith J it is said that
" faith, thus receiving and resting upon Christ and His righteous-
ness, is the alone instrument of justification ; " and in the Larger
Catechism § it is said that " faith justifies a sinner in the sight of
God, . . . only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and
applieth Christ and His righteousness." And yet it is also said||
that " the grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in
that He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and
life and salvation by Him ; and requiring faith as the condition to
interest them in Him, promiseth and giveth His Holy Spirit to

* Dr. Owen on Justification, c. iii.
t Turret., Loc. xvi. Quaes, vii.
i West. Conf. c. xi. s. ii.

§ Larger Catechism, Ques. 73.
II lUd. Ques. 32.

Sec. v.]

OFFICE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING.

all His elect, to work in them that faith with all other saving
graces." Now this statement, though it does not directly repre-
sent faith as the condition of justification, plainly implies that
there is a sense in which faith, though it justifies only as an
instrument, may yet be said to be the condition of an interest
in the blessings of the covenant, and, of course, of pardon and
acceptance.

Secondly, that those statements in which faith is represented
as the condition, or sine qua non^ of justification, have been most
generally and most freely used by men of unsound views upon
the general subject ; and that the use of them has been commonly
avoided and discountenanced by orthodox divines, as, in their
natural and obvious sense, they most readily harmonize with, and
therefore tend to encourage, erroneous views of the grounds of
justification. If the expressions, condition and causa sine qua non,
are understood to mean merely something required by God of men,
in order to their being pardoned, invariably existing in all men who
are justified, there can be no positive objection to applying them
to faith. In this sense, indeed, they err by defect : they ascribe
no sort of causality or efficiency to faith in the matter, give no
indication or explanation of the special prominence ascribed to it
in Scripture, and do not discriminate it from repentance, which
is admitted to be required of God in order to our being forgiven,
and to exist in all who are pardoned. And, accordingly, those
orthodox divines who have approved of calling faith a condition
of justification, and of the other blessings of the covenant of
grace, — as, for instance, Marckius,* — admit that repentance is
equally, and in the same sense, a condition as faith is, and de-
scribe them both as, at once and alike, conditions of the covenant
of grace, and duties of those who are in the covenant — conditiones
foederis et o^cia foederatorum. In the only other sense which
these words naturally and obviously bear, orthodox divines usually
regard them as erring by excess, — as involving positive error, —
inasmuch as the application of them to faith, in that sense, would
imply that faith justified as a work, — which, with the Apostle

* Marckii Compend. Theol. c. xxii.
Vide De Moor, Comment, torn. iv. c.
xxii. In opposition to the use of the
word condition, see Witsius, -De Q2con.
Feed. lib. iii. c. i. sees. viii. -xvi. :

but compare with this his Irenicum, c.
xii. Hoornbeck's Summa Controver-
siarum, hb. x. ; De Brownistis, pp.
812-831.

76 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

Paul's unqualified exclusion of works, is not to be admitted if it
can be helped, — and that faith justifies, inasmuch as, by its own
proper and inherent efficacy, it has a strict and proper, if not
meritorious, causality in procuring or obtaining justification, or
enters into the grounds or reasons on account of which God
pardons and accepts. Accordingly, most of those who have con-
tended most zealously for faith being the condition or causa sine
qua non of justification, have supported one or other of the two
following views : First, that faith justifies, because it has in itself
so much that is valuable and excellent, that for Christ's sake — as
they commonly say, though apparently without attaching any
very definite idea to the expression — God is led to reckon or im-
pute it to men, as if it were perfect righteousness ; or, secondly,
that faith justifies, because, in addition to the worth or excellence
it has of its own, it is the great cause which produces all other
graces, and new obedience to God's law. Now both of these
views of the subject exclude, and are intended to exclude, the
Scripture doctrine of the righteousness of Christ, as the only
ground of a sinner's justification. They ascribe to faith a kind
and degree of real efficiency in procuring or obtaining justifica-
tion which the word of God does not ascribe to it, and they are
both explicitly condemned in the standards of our church.

On all these accounts, the expressions instrument, or instru-
mental cause, are those which have most generally commended
themselves to orthodox divines, as indicating most correctly the
place and influence assigned in Scripture to faith in the matter of
a sinner's justification ; Maestricht being, so far as I remember,
almost the only orthodox divine of eminence who positively prefers
the word condition to the word instrument.* Since men are said to
be justified by faith, faith must be, in some sense or other, more or
less full and proper, the cause or means of their justification ; and
while a conjoint view of the whole doctrine of Scripture upon the
subject leaves to faith no other place or influence than that of an
instrument or instrumental cause, there is nothing whatever in
Scripture that requires us to ascribe to it a higher kind or degree
of causality — a larger amount of real efficiency — in the production
of the result. But the Scripture not only marks out the general
place or influence which alone faith can have in the matter ; it

* Mastricht, Theol lib. vi. c. vi. sees. xiv. and xxviii.

Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 77

very precisely and exactly indicates what its actual place is. It re-
presents the righteousness of Christ as the sole ground or reason of
the justification of a sinner. This righteousness God bestows upon
men, and they accept or receive it as a thing held out or offered
to them. On their accepting or receiving it, it becomes theirs
in full possession, and is imputed to them, or put down to their
account, and thus becomes the ground or reason from a regard
to which God pardons and accepts them. Now this accepting or
receiving of Christ, and the blessings which are in Him, is identi-
fied in Scripture with the exercise of faith. And from all these
scriptural truths, viewed conjointly, the conclusion unavoidably
follows, that faith justifies, only because, or inasmuch as, it is the
instrument or medium by which men are connected with, or
united to, Christ, and by which they receive or lay hold of Him
and His righteousness. This is really nothing more than express-
ing and embodying, in a distinct and definite statement, what the
Scriptures, when we take a deliberate and combined view of all
that they contain bearing upon this subject, plainly indicate as
the true state of the case, the real history of the process ; and the
beautiful consistency and harmony pervading the whole scheme
of doctrine which is thus developed, affords a confirmation of the
truth and accuracy of each of its component parts. Each has its
own appropriate scriptural evidence, embodying a truth obviously
suggested by statements contained in Scripture, and necessary,
in each instance, as the only way of bringing out distinctly and
definitely the substance of what Scripture plainly appears to
have been intended to teach ; while all, without force or pres-
sure, fit into, and harmonize with, each other, and, when com-
bined together, unfold a great and consistent scheme in entire
harmony with all the leading views opened up to us in Scripture
with respect to the natural state and condition of men, the
character of God, and the principles of His moral government,
and the satisfaction and meritorious obedience of Him on whom
God has laid our help, and who is able to save unto the utter-
most all that come unto God by Him.

Men are justified freely or gratuitously by God's grace, because,
from their actual state and condition by nature, they could not
possibly be justified in any other way, being utterly unable to
do anything either to effect or to merit their own justification.
This grace of God in the justification of sinners is developed and

78 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap.XXT.

exercised in His giving His only-begotten Son to be their surety
and their substitute, to endure the penalty, and to perform the
requirements of .the law, in their room and stead, and thus to
work out for them an everlasting righteousness. Socinus, indeed,
laboured to show that the gracious or gratuitous character of
God's act in justifying was inconsistent with its being founded
on, and having respect to, a vicarious satisfaction. But this mis-
representation is sufficiently exposed in the following statement :
" Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt
of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real,
and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf. Yet,
inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them, and His
obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely,
not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace ;
that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glori-
fied in the justification of sinners." *

The same character of free grace pervades also the application
of the scheme or the provision made for imparting to men indi-
vidually the pardon and acceptance which the grace of God and
the vicarious work of Christ have secured for them. Christ and
His righteousness — and in Him, and on the ground of His right-
eousness, pardon, acceptance, and eternal life — are freely offered
to them in the word of the truth of the Gospel, held out to them,
and pressed upon their acceptance. Faith alone, and nothing else
in them, — no working or mere obedience to law, — nothing which
either in itself could be meritorious, or could be easily supposed
to have merit, — is the appointed mean by which men individually
become united to Christ, interested in His vicarious work, par-
takers of the blessings which that work secured ; and this faith,
besides that it is God's gift, wrought in men by His gracious
power, is just, in its nature or substance, trust or confidence in
Christ, — an act by which men go out of themselves, renounce all
confidence in anything they have done or can do, and receive or
lay hold, as if with a hand, of that which has been gratuitously
provided for them, and is freely offered to them. Plere, then, is
a great and glorious scheme, complete and harmonious in all its
parts, of grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life
by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, says the apostle, " it is of

* West Conf. c. xi. sec. iii. See Larger Catechism, Qu. 71.

Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 79

faith, that it might be of grace ; to the end the promise might be
sure to all the seed." *

The doctrine of gratuitous justification, based solely upon the
vicarious righteousness of Christ, imputed to men and received
by faith alone, was the great truth which the Reformers were
honoured by God to bring out from the obscurity and error in
which it had been involved in the Church of Rome, — which they
established from the word of God, and proclaimed openly to the
world, — and by which mainly God gave them victory over the
Church of Rome and the prince of darkness. This was what
Luther called the article of a standing or a falling church ; and
the history of the church, both before and since his time, has fully
justified the propriety of the description. There has, perhaps,
been no department of divine truth against which the assaults of
Satan have been more assiduously directed ever since the origin
of the Christian church, than the Scripture doctrine of justifica-
tion ; and there has probably been no doctrine the profession and
preaching of which have more generally indicated with correctness
the state of vital religion in the church in all ages. Scriptural
views upon this subject, and the general prevalence of true prac-
tical godliness, have acted and reacted upon each other with pal-
pable and invariable efficacy ; — God, whenever. He was pleased
to pour out His Spirit abundantly, promoting both, each by
means of the other ; and Satan constantly labouring, more openly
or more insidiously, to corrupt the scriptural doctrine of free
justification, on the ground of Christ's righteousness imputed to
men and received by faith alone, as the surest means of effecting
his great object of ruining men's souls, by leading them to reject
the counsel of God against themselves, and to put away from
them eternal life.

Sec. 6. — Objections to the Scriptural Doctrine.

The scriptural doctrine of justification is substantially ex-
hausted, so far as concerns its leading principles, by those truths
which we have already explained ; at least when we add to them
this, that as men receive entire immunity from all their past sins,
when they first lay hold of Christ's righteousness through faith,

* Rom. iv. 16.

80 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

so God doth continue to forgive the subsequent sins of those who
are justified, on the same grounds, and through the same process.
As we have now explained the whole of the Protestant doctrine
upon this subject, this may be a suitable opportunity to advert
to the objections which have been adduced against it, on the
ground of its alleged immoral tendency.

This great doctrine of the Reformation was assailed by Ro-
manists at the time, and has been always assailed by them and
other opponents of the truth, as unfavourable to the interests of
morality, as relaxing or overturning the obligations incumbent
upon men to obey the law of God, and to discharge the duties
which His word imposes upon them. This is just the objection
which, as the Apostle Paul intimates to us, naturally and ob-
viously enough suggested itself against the doctrine which he
taught upon the subject of justification. The objection then
was, that he made void the law through faith ; and of course
the fact that the same objection, in substance, is so often urged,
and with sofhe plausibility, against the Protestant doctrine, is a
presumption that it is the same which Paul taught.

It is certainly true that those who have been most zealous in
urging this objection, have not, in general, exhibited in their own
character and history a very high standard of holiness, or any very
deep sense of the obligations to practise it ; but still the objection
ought to be examined and answered upon the ground of its own
merits. The common allegation of Romish writers, that the Re-
formers, and those who have adopted their principles, deny the
necessity of an inherent righteousness, or a renovation of man's
moral nature, and contend only for the necessity of an extrinsic,
imputed righteousness, is an entire misrepresentation of their
doctrine. Protestants, indeed, deny the necessity of an inherent
righteousness or a moral renovation, as that which is the ground
or basis of God's act in pardoning and accepting ; but they do
not deny — nay, they strenuously contend for — the necessity of its
presence in all justified persons. They maintain that faith alone
justifies, but not a faith which is alone — only a faith which is ever
accompanied with, and produces, all other saving graces; and
Bellarmine, as we have seen, admits explicitly that it is one of the
characteristic differences between Protestants and Papists, that
Protestants hold, "Fidem quam dicunt solum justificare nunquam
esse posse solam," while the Church of Rome maintains, " Fideui

Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 81

non justificare solam sed tamen posse esse solam," — an admission
which at once overturns the ordinary Popish misrepresentations of
Protestant doctrine upon this subject ; misrepresentations, how-
ever, which Bellarmine himself, notwithstanding this admission,
has not abstained from countenancing. Protestants have always
contended that, in order that we may escape the wrath and curse
of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto
life, as well as faith ; and that repentance unto life implies a reno-
vation of the moral nature, and consists in an actual turning from
all sin unto God, with a purpose of new obedience ; although they
do not regard repentance as standing in the same relation to jus-
tification as faith does, — unless as it is inclusive of faith, — or as
exerting any sort of causality or efficiency, even the lowest, in the
matter of a sinner's justification, just because we are never said in
Scripture, directly or by implication, to be justified by repentance
while we are frequently and expressly said to be justified by faith.
When these considerations are kept in view, and when they are
brought to bear, in their true and legitimate import, upon the
state of the question, it becomes quite plain that we are fully en-
titled to put the objection adduced by Papists and others against
the moral tendency of the doctrine of free justification by faith
alone on the ground of Christ's imputed righteousness, in this
form, and to discuss this as the only real point in dispute, — viz.,
that there can be no adequate and effectual reason to persuade
and induce men to turn from sin unto God, and to submit them-
selves practically to Christ's authority, unless we can assure them
that, by doing so, they will exert some causality or efficiency in
procuring or obtaining for themselves the pardon of their sins,
the enjoyment of God's favour, and a right to eternal life. The
doctrine of the Reformers precluded them from urging this pre-
cise consideration upon men in order to persuade them to turn
from sin unto God, and to submit themselves to Christ as their
Lord and Master ; but it left them at full liberty to employ every
other motive or consideration that could be adduced by those who
taught a different doctrine of justification.

Now it is manifestly absurd to say that no sufficient reason
can be adduced to persuade men to turn from sin, and to submit
themselves to Christ's authority, unless we can assure them that,
by doing so, they will exert some influence or efficiency in procur-
ing orlohtaining for themselves pardon and acceptance, so long as
3 — VOL. II. r

82 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.

we can urge upon them that God requires them to do all this, —
that by refusing to do it they are provoking His righteous dis-
pleasure, and hardening themselves in a condition of guilt and
misery, — and that, unless they do all this, they will not be, in point
of fact, pardoned and saved, but must perish for ever. All this
can be said and urged upon men in entire consistency with the
Protestant doctrine of free justification through Christ's imputed
righteousness ; and if so, the Popish objection falls to the ground.

But this topic is important chiefly from its connection with the
great general subject of the provision made in the gospel scheme
for changing men's moral natures, for making them holy, and re-
storing them to a conformity to God's moral image ; or, what is
virtually the same thing, the connection between justification and
sanctification, in the Protestant acceptation of these words. The
Church of Rome, as we have seen, confounds justification and
sanctification, using this latter word in its widest sense as includ-
ing regeneration, and thus comprehending the whole process by
which men are made holy. They regard justification as includ-
ing both the forgiveness of sin and the renovation of man's moral
nature, or, as they commonly call it, the infusing of righteous-
ness ; but then they represent the latter as, in the order of nature
at least, if not of time, antecedent to the former, and as indeed
the ground or reason on account of which the pardon of sin is
bestowed. Protestants, in accordance with Scripture usage, re-
gard justification and regeneration, or renovation, as distinct in
themselves, and as not standing to each other in any sense in the
relation of cause and effect, but only as invariably connected in
point of fact, and as both traceable, as their proximate cause, to
that faith by which men are united to Christ. They regard re-
generation, not indeed in its more restricted and limited sense,
as describing merely the first implantation of spiritual life by the
Holy Ghost, — for that must be antecedent in the order of nature
even to faith, — but in its more enlarged sense, as comprehending
the implantation in the heart of love instead of enmity to God,
and of holy principles and tendencies in place of depraved ones,
— as posterior in the order of nature, though not of time, to justi-
fication, or the bestowal of pardon and acceptance.

In considering the provision made in the gospel scheme —
according to the Protestant view of its nature and arrangements
— for producing holiness, as including conformity to God's image

Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 83

and actual obedience to His law, it is of importance to keep in
mind that there are two different aspects in which holiness, in its
widest sense, is presented to us in Scripture : first, as a gift
bestowed on men by God, — a change effected upon them by the
gracious agency of the Holy Spirit ; and, secondly, as a duty or
matter of obligation which God requires of them. That holiness
in all its extent, as including repentance, conversion, progressive
sanctification, and actual conformity of life to God's law, is repre-
sented in Scripture in both these aspects, is very manifest, and is
not denied by Romanists, but, only by Socinians and the grosser
Pelagians. And if this be so, then both these views of it ought
to be remembered and applied, as well in our speculations con-
cerning it, as in the feelings we cherish, and the course we pursue,
in regard to any matter involved in it, — each aspect of it being
allowed to occupy its proper place, and to exert its appropriate
influence. I have no doubt that unfavourable impressions of the
moral tendency of the scriptural doctrine of justification have
been encouraged by overlooking this twofold aspect of holiness, or
conformity of heart and life to God's law, and regarding it chiefly,
if not exclusively, as a duty which God requires of us. When it
is viewed as a grace or gift bestowed upon and wrought in us,
then we have just to consider what provision God has made for
imparting it, and what the way and manner in which He com-
municates it to men individually. Now, in tids aspect of the
matter, the scriptural representation of the case is this, — that,
from men's natural state and condition, it is indispensably neces-
sary, in order to their final happiness, that a change be effected
both upon their state and condition judicially in relation to God
and His law, and upon their moral nature, principles, and ten-
dencies ; that God has provided for effecting both these changes,
by giving His own Son to be the surety and substitute of His
people; and that He communicates to men individually both
these gifts by uniting them to Christ through the agency or in-
strumentality of faith on their part, which He works in them.
It was necessary that both these changes should be effected, that
both these gifts should be bestowed. God has made effectual
provision for imparting and securing both. They are both found
in Christ, when men are united to Him. They are both effected
or conferred, as to their immediate or proximate cause, through
that faith by which this union to Christ is brought about. The

84 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

two things cannot be separated, because God has made equally
certain provision for effecting and bestowing both, and has
clearly revealed it to us in His word as a fundamental principle
of His unchangeable arrangements, that wherever He confers
the one, He always confers the other. They are both equally
God's gifts ; and, according to the arrangements which He has
established in the covenant of grace, and which He has revealed
in His word, they both flow with an equal certainty or necessity
from union to Christ, and from faith in Him.

Now, in this aspect of the case, there can be no possible
ground for entertaining any suspicion whatever of the moral ten-
dency of the scriptural doctrine of justification ; for the substance
of the truth we hold upon the point is this, — that God made
equally certain and effectual provision for changing men's state,
and for changing their character; for securing that every one
who is pardoned and accepted, shall also, at the same time, be
born again, be renewed in the spirit of his mind, be created again
in Christ Jesus unto good works. The differences between the
Protestant and the Popish doctrine upon the subject are these, —
that the Papists regard both changes as comprehended under
the one word justification, and represent the change of state as
posterior, and standing in a relation of causal dependence, in some
sense, to the change of character; while the Protestants reject
these views. Now, even conceding, for the sake of argument,
that these Popish representations of the matter were in accordance
with Scripture, or that there was equal ground for regarding
them as scriptural as the Protestant doctrine, what we wish to
observe is, that there is no appearance of their possessing any ad-
vantage or superiority, in point of moral tendency, in the aspect
of the case we are at present considering; and for this plain
reason, that they do not appear to contribute in the least to
increase the certainty, necessity, and invariableness of the con-
nection between the two changes or gifts. God has resolved to
bestow both, He has made effectual provision for bestowing both,
on all on whom He bestows either; and He will just as certainly
and as invariably carry this arrangement into effect, whatever
may be the name or names under which He has classed them,
and whatever may be the order, either of time or of causal
dependence, in which He has fixed them with reference to each
other. No suspicion can legitimately attach to the moral ten-

Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCKIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 85

dency of any system of doctrine upon this subject, and with re-
ference to the aspect in which we are at present considering it,
unless it deny, directly or by implication, either that God has
established an invariable connection between His two gifts of a
change of state and a change of character, or that He has made
certain and effectual provision for bestowing both on all on whom
He bestows either; and as the Protestant doctrine is just as far
from denying either of these positions as the Popish one, it is at
least equally safe and wholesome in its moral tendency.

It is only when this view of justification and sanctification, or
forgiveness and renovation, as equally God's gifts, — which He has
made effectual provision for bestowing upon all for whom they
were intended, — is kept out of view, and when man's attention is
turned solely to the other aspect of regeneration and sanctifica-
tion, as being simply duties which God requires of us, that the
common allegations about the moral tendency of the Protestant
doctrine of justification can be invested with anything like plausi-
bility. It is certain that repentance, conversion, growing holiness
of nature, and practical obedience to God's law, are all duties
which God requires of us, as well as gifts which He bestows.
And when we regard them as duties, and are called upon to
vindicate the Protestant doctrine of justification from the charge
of being unfavourable or injurious to the interests of morality,
we may be expected to show that that doctrine leaves the obliga-
tion of these duties untouched, and leaves also full scope for our
addressing to men such considerations as ought, in right reason,
to persuade and constrain them to perform them. We might,
indeed, take our stand upon the former view of the matter, —
to the effect, at least, of throwing the onus prohandi upon our
opponents, — and maintain that, since we hold that God has
established a certain and invariable connection between justi-
fication and renovation, it is incumbent upon them to show that
our doctrine in regard to the one relaxes the obligation of the
other, and deprives us of the capacity of addressing to men con-
siderations which, in right reason, should, as motives, persuade
and constrain them to repent and be converted, to enter into and
to continue in Christ's service, and to persevere ever thereafter in
walking as He walked, and in obeying His law. But there is
no occasion to contest this preliminary point, or to confine our-
selves so rigidly within the range of what is logically imperative ;

86 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

for there is really no difficulty in proving that the Protestant
doctrine of justification leaves the obligations of men to holiness
of heart and life in all its extent, at least, untouched, and leaves us
quite sufficiently strong and powerful considerations — nay, affords
us the strongest and most powerful of all considerations — to per-
suade men, on the fullest and most rational grounds, to do all that
God requires of them, and to perform all the duties which He
has imposed upon them.

In briefly illustrating this position, we may first advert to
what are the motives and considerations which the Romanists
can bring to bear upon men, but from the use of which Pro-
testants, by their doctrine, are precluded. We cannot, and we
dare not, tell men, as the Church of Rome does, that fear, hope,
penitence, and love must exist in men, as well as faith, before
justification, and that all these virtues existing in men prepare
and dispose them to receive justification ; and still less can we
tell them, as most Romish writers do, and without contradicting
the Council of Trent, that these virtues merit justification ex
congruo. And neither can we tell them, as the Council of Trent
and all Romish writers do, that the good works which men per-
iform after they are justified, merit or deserve increase of grace
^and eternal life ex condigno. We cannot bring these considera-
tions to bear upon men, because we believe them to be false, and
are assured upon this ground that they are not fitted to serve
any good and useful purpose. Nay, we are persuaded that they
contradict or pervert the provision which God has made and re-
vealed for promoting the holiness and happiness of men, and
therefore tend, in so far as they are believed and acted on, to
injure men's spiritual welfare. But while we cannot employ
these considerations, we have motives enough of the most power-
ful and constraining kind to persuade them to enter upon, and
to persevere and abound in, all holiness and new obedience.

In considering this subject, we are entitled to assume that men
believe in the divine authority of the whole word of God, and
admit their obligation to be guided in all things by its statements
and requirements; and that they believe and honestly apply,
according to their true nature and tendency, the Protestant doc-
trines with respect to the causes and means of justification, and
the position and circumstances in which justified men are placed.
We are entitled to assume this, because really the question at

Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 87

issue is just this : How will a man who, receiving the Bible as
the word of God, believes, on its authority as he supposes, the
Protestant doctrine of justification, be in right reason aifected, as
to his sense of obligation with respect to obedience to God's law,
and the strength of the motives that should constrain him to dis-
charge this obligation? And upon this assumption, it is plain
that, in reason and consistency, the man will just receive and
submit to all that Scripture sets forth concerning the perfection
and unchangeableness of the divine law, the obligations of holi-
ness, and the hatefulness and danger of sin. Men may receive
the Protestant doctrine of justification, and yet hold all that
Romanists or any others believe to be taught in Scripture upon
these points. There is nothing in that doctrine that, either directly
or by implication, tends to affect injuriously men's views as to
their relation to God, their obligations to comply with all His re-
quirements, and the connection which He has established between
holiness and happiness. Romanists allege, that while Protestants
may speculatively admit all this upon the authority of Scripture,
yet that the tendency of their doctrine of justification is to weaken
their sense of the truth and reality of this principle, and thus to
lead them practically to disregard it. But this is a mere random
assertion, which has no definite or satisfactory foundation to rest
upon. The Protestant doctrine not only accords with all that
Scripture says with respect to the perfection and unchangeable-
ness of the law, God's determination to maintain its honour in-
violate, and to manifest fully His love of righteousness and His
hatred of sin ; but it is fitted to bring out all these views in the
clearest and most impressive light, to bring them home most
powerfully both to the understanding and the hearts of men.
The obligation of faith, fear, hope, love, and penitence remain
unaffected by the denial of their preparative, dispositive, meri-
torious efficacy in the matter of justification. It continues true,
that these are all duties which God imperatively requires of all
men who have sinned, and who desire to escape from the con-
sequences of their sins, — duties which He has placed them under
an absolute and indefeasible obligation to perform, — duties which
they are all bound to discharge, at once from a regard to God's
authority and to their own best interests.

So far as concerns the whole process of turning from sin unto
God, of embracing Christ as our Saviour, and submitting to Him

88 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

as our Lord and Master, any consideration that goes to establish
its obligation and necessity, and that is fitted to persuade and
constrain men to do what is incumbent upon them in the matter,
remains in full force, unaffected by any particular views as to the
precise way in which God deals with us when we come to Him
through Christ, or as to the precise grounds or causes of the
treatment which, in these circumstances, He bestows upon us.
It still continues equally true, upon the Protestant as upon the
Romish doctrine of justification, that God requires of us faith
and repentance, and requires them of us as indispensably neces-
sary to our escaping His wrath and curse due to us for our sins,
though not as exerting any causality or efficiency in procuring
or obtaining for us pardon and acceptance, except instrumentally
in the case of faith ; and it is a part of the Protestant, though
not of the Romish doctrine, that the faith which justifies, neces-
sarily and invariably produces graces and good works. And after
men have been once justified and regenerated, the case continues
very much the same as to obligation in persevering and abound-
ing in all holy obedience. As the obligation of the law continues
unchanged with respect to men in their natural condition, though
it was impossible for them to procure or obtain justification by
deeds of law, so, as our Confession says,* " it doth for ever bind
all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,"
though they '' be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to
be thereby justified or condemned."

With respect to progressive holiness and the performance of
good works, the only consideration competent to Papists, from the
use of which Protestants by their doctrine are excluded, is, that
justified men, by the good works which they perform, do truly and
properly merit increase of grace and eternal life. Now this is a
consideration which does not properly affect men's obligation to
perform good works, in the stricter and higher sense of the word,
— their obligation, as determined by their relation to God and a
sense of duty : it can operate merely as a motive, and a motive
addressed to the lower and more selfish principles of men's nature.
And even with reference to this lower class of motives, Pro-
testants are not precluded, as we may afterwards have occasion
to explain, from holding the good works of justified men to be

* "West. Conf. c. xix. sees. v. vi.

Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 89

rewardable, though not meritorious. The loss of this motive, then,
independently altogether of the question as to the truth or false-
hood of the doctrine on which it is founded, is a matter of no real
moment ; and it is far more than compensated by the great addi-
tional force and impressiveness which the Protestant doctrine of
justification gives to any consideration that can either enforce an
obligation, or afford a constraining motive to persevere and abound
in all holy obedience. A man who has been brought into a jus-
tified state, and who, in realizing his present position, — in look-
ing back upon the process by which he has been brought into it, —
contemplates the whole matter in the light which is shed upon it
by the great Protestant doctrine which we have been endeavour-
ing to explain, must have a deeper sense of his obligations to love
God, to honour and serve Christ, and to run in the way of His
commandments, than could be produced in any other way ; and
must be brought under the influence of motives which alone are
fitted to constrain him to live, not unto himself, but unto Him
that died for him, and that rose again, and to adorn the doctrine
of his God and Saviour in all things. The exposition and enforce-
ment of these obligations and motives, and of the grounds on
which they rest, constitute the preaching of the truth as it is in
Jesus, in so far as it is directed to the object of building up
God's people in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.
And the efficacy of Protestant views of the present condition of
justified men, and of the whole process by which they have been
brought into it, in deepening their sense of these obligations, and
in impressing these motives upon their minds, must surely be
abundantly evident to every one who, whether he believes the
Protestant doctrine or not, will just realize what that doctrine is,
and what are the history and condition of a justified man when
contemplated in the light in which that doctrine represents them.
This is indeed so evident, that the fairer and more candid
Romanists have usually founded their allegations as to the im-
moral tendency of Protestant doctrine, not so much upon our
views as to the grounds or causes of justification, and the way
and manner in which men are brought into a justified state, as
upon the views held by the Reformers and by Calvinists on what
is commonly called by us the perseverance of the saints, but
what Romish divines usually call the inamissibility of justice or
righteousness. We do not mean to discuss this doctrine at pre-

90 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

sent, as it more properly belongs to the controversy between the
Calvlnists and the Arminians, and can be rightly explained and
defended only in connection with the doctrine of predestination,
or election to life. I would only remark that even this doctrine
of the inamissibility of justice, or the certainty of final persever-
ance in a state of grace, when men have once been admitted into
it, does not, in right reason, either effect the obligations under
which justified men lie, or impair the motives which operate
upon them to abound and to persevere in all holy obedience ;
that the very thing in which they persevere is just righteousness
and holiness ; and that all legitimate tendency to abuse or per-
vert the doctrine is cliecked by the principle which Scripture so
fully sanctions, — viz., that if men continue for a length of time
habitually careless or indifferent about growing in holiness and
abounding in good works, the only fair inference from this state
of things is, — not indeed that they have lost righteousness, or
fallen from a state of grace, but that they have never yet been
brought into a state of grace, — that they are still subject to God's
wrath and curse, and should still inquire what they must do to
be saved.

These brief hints may afford some assistance, not only in deal-
ing with the leading objection against the Protestant doctrine of
justification by faith alone, on the ground of Christ's righteous-
ness imputed, based upon its alleged moral tendency, but also in
explaining the connection between the doctrines of justification
and sanctification ; and in practically applying the scriptural doc-
trine of justification to the purpose of promoting the interests of
practical godliness, of leading justified men to be ever growing in
righteousness and holiness, and to be increasingly showing forth
the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His
marvellous lisht.

Sec. 7. — The Forgiveness of Post-haptisrnal Sins.

The general view of the subject of justification taught by the
Council of Trent, in so far as we have hitherto explained it, is
applied by Romanists only to the justification of persons who
have not been baptized in infancy, but who have been brought
to the knowledge of Christ and Christianity after they have
grown up to years of understanding. According to the doctrine

Sec. VII.] FORGIVENESS OF POST-BAPTISMAL SINS. 91

of the Church of Rome, every infant in baptism is justified, — i.e.,
is forgiven and regenerated, or freed wliolly both from the guilt
and the power of original sin, — a doctrine opposed to the word of
God, most injurious in its practical bearing upon the spiritual
welfare of men, but well fitted to enhance the importance of the
outward ordinance, and of its official administrators. With re-
spect to those who are not baptized till after they are grown up,
the Church of Rome requires in them the possession of the seven
virtues, so often referred to as existing before they are pardoned
and regenerated, and as at least preparing and disposing them for
justification. The deliverance from the guilt and the power of
all their past sins, original and actual, in the case of all adults so
prepared and disposed, is as full and complete as the deliverance
from the guilt and the power of original sin granted to all infants,
without any preparation in baptism. But then the Church of
Rome puts the forgiveness of all the subsequent sins of both these
classes, or of all post-baptismal sin, as they call it, upon a dif-
ferent footing, and introduces into this department some new
principles and arrangements, which are opposed to the word of
God, but admirably adapted to promote the general designs of
Popery, and the interests of the priesthood.

It is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that no mortal sin
committed after baptism is forgiven to any man, except in and
through the sacrament of penance, — i.e., without confession,
absolution, and satisfaction, — or unless it be confessed to a priest,
— unless he pronounce the words of absolution, — and unless the
penitent perform the satisfaction imposed by him ; though, as to
the necessity of this last condition, there is no formal decision of
the church, and it is a subject of controversy among Romish
writers. The sacrament of penance, both in its general com-
plex character, and with reference to the particular parts of
which it is composed, is evidently a mere fabrication, having no
appearance of foundation in Scripture ; but it belongs to the
head of sacramental justification, to which I shall afterwards
advert as a general topic of discussion. My present subject leads
me to advert only to one feature of the Romish doctrine upon
this point, — viz., that the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin, con-
veyed by the absolution of the priest in the sacrament of penance,
is not so full and complete as that conveyed in baptism. The
absolution of the sacrament of penance conveys, indeed, full

92 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

immunity from any liability to the eternal punishment which
the sin deserved, but leaves the penitent exposed to a temporal
punishment, which God must still inflict, and the penitent must
still bear, on account of that sin. There is no doubt, or room
for discussion, as to what the doctrine of the Church of Eome
upon this point is, and therefore we need not adduce quotations.*
Let us briefly consider what this doctrine really involves, as it is
usually drawn out and applied ; for Romanists have certainly
made the most of it, and turned it to very good account.

The first point is, that when the guilt of post-baptismal sin is
remitted in the sacrament of penance, so that men are exempted
from liability to the eternal punishment which the sin deserved,
they still remain liable to a temporal punishment to be inflicted
by God on account of it. Now this doctrine naturally suggests
the question. How, or in what way, is this temporal punishment
inflicted by God and endured by them ; or how is it otherwise
disposed of, so that those to whom it attached are no longer
subject to any liability to suffer, but are admissible into the en-
joyment of perfect happiness ? If the general doctrine, that a
temporal punishment remains due, after the proper guilt and
liability to eternal punishment are taken away, be admitted, the
most natural answer to the question suggested would be, that
God inflicted, and that men endured, this temporal punishment,
in the providential trials and afflictions of this life. Accordingly,
the Church of Rome teaches — as her general doctrine upon this
subject plainly required of her — that the trials and afflictions of
justified men — for of course it is to them only that the whole
subject applies — are strictly and properly penal ; and that they
thus constitute, at least partly, the infliction and the endurance of
this temporal punishment.

This, however, was leaving the matter far too much in the
hands of God in His providence, without the intervention of the
church and the priest, and was not much fitted to work upon
men's fears. Accordingly, the Church of Rome has invented
purgatory, in the fire of which men may, and of course many
must, endure after death what may remain of the temporal
punishment due to their mortal sins ; and of the whole punish-

* The most direct and explicitautho- I scss. vi. cap. xiv. can. 30; and sess.
ritics on the point are : Con. Triden. | xiv. cap. viii. can. 12 and 13.

Sec. VIL] FORGIVENESS OF POST-BAPTISMAL SINS. 93

ment — for it is only temporal — due to their venial sins. This is
rather alarming, and does not seem to comport very well with the
representations given us in Scripture of the conditions, obliga-
tions, and prospects of justified men. But Popery is very skilful
in its provisions for affording comfort, as well as for inspiring
terror. Accordingly, the church teaches that there is a way in
which this temporal punishment, remaining due by men, may be
disposed of, or got quit of, without their actually enduring it, —
that they may satisfy the claims of God's justice and law in the
matter by a different process ; and this brings in their doctrine of
human satisfaction. It is this, that men, by various works which
they can perform, — especially prayers, fastings, and almsgivings,
— can and do make satisfaction or compensation to God for the
temporal punishment remaining due to them, and thus escape the
necessity of enduring it. Praying, fasting, and almsgiving are
thus invested with a penal character ; they are represented as the
endurance of punishment for sin ; in short, as standing in tlie
same relation and effecting the same result with reference to the
temporal punishment due to sin, as the sufferings and death of
Christ do with reference to its eternal punishment. Men can
render satisfaction to God for the temporal punishment due to
their sins, by voluntarily undertaking and performing extraordi-
nary acts of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving ; but it is much safer,
at least for the mass of men, just to perform exactly the penances,
or penal endurances, — i.e., the prayers, fastings, and almsdeeds
enjoined by the priest at absolution, as he of course is the best
judge of the amount of suffering or endurance in these ways that
may be necessary to make satisfaction to the divine law.

This doctrine of human satisfaction is a very important addi-
tion to the general scheme of Popish teaching, as to the way in
which men are to be exempted from the consequences of their
sins. But we have not yet attained to a full view of it. As a
man, by his prayers, fastings, and almsdeeds, may make satisfac-
tion or compensation to God for the temporal punishment due to
his own sins, so, by the same means, he can make satisfaction to
God for the temporal punishment due to the sins of others, — " ut
unus posset pro altero satisfacere," — " alterius nomine possunt
quod Deo debetur persolvere." * As the Church of Eome, while

* Catech. Trident. P. ii. cap. v. Qusest. Ixxii.

94 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

explicitly teaching this general doctrine, has not imposed any re-
striction upon the capacity or the right of one man to make satis-
faction in the room of another, and to transfer the benefit of his
satisfactory endurances to whom he pleases, the practice, which
prevails in some Popish countries, of men and women making a
livelihood by hiring themselves to perform vicarious prayings, as
a satisfaction for the sins of others, is the natural and legitimate
result of the authorized teaching of the church. Still, however,
even yet, the system laboured under two defects : first, men who
needed some assistance in making satisfaction for the temporal
punishment due to their sins, might often find a difficulty in get-
ting substitutes to satisfy in their room ; and, secondly, even if
substitutes could be got without great difficulty, the church might
not derive much direct benefit from these private and personal
transactions, in the way of transferring satisfaction from one man
to another. To remedy at once these two evils, she provided a
great treasure of satisfactions, and opened a public market for the
dispensation of them, that men might be put to no great incon-
venience In obtaining a supply of vicarious satisfactions, and that,
being indebted for it to the church, they might be reasonably
called upon for due and suitable expressions of their obligations to
her. Thus at length we have arrived at indulgences, which are
just the communication to men of satisfactions made by others,
and deposited, under the Pope's control, in what the Council of
Trent calls "the heavenly treasures of the Church ;" the certain
effect of this communication being, that those to whom it is made
are in consequence exempted, pro tanto, from the necessity of
either satisfying for or actually enduring the temporal punishment
which otherwise God would have inflicted upon them. And when
I have stated further, that, according to the doctrine of the Church
of Rome, indulgences not only exempt men, pro tanto, from the
necessity of personal suffering or satisfaction in this life, but like-
wise shorten the duration or mitigate the severity of their sufferings
in the fire of purgatory, I think I have introduced all the leading
features of the doctrine of the Romanists upon this subject.

Now this is a magnificent and well-compacted scheme, dis-
playing great inventive genius, pi'ofound knowledge of human
nature, and admirable skill in contrivance and adaptation. Each
one of the principles or doctrines in the series, taken by itself, is
fitted to obscure and pervert the scriptural account of the provi-

Sec. VII.] FORGIVENESS OF POST-BAPTISMAL SINS. 95

sion made for pardoning men's sins, and saving them from the
punishment their sins deserve ; and all of them separately, and
the whole conjointly, are necessary to be established, as the foun-
dation of the doctrine of indulgences, which may be regarded as
constituting the climax of a long and intricate series of anti-scrip-
tural and most dangerous errors. If any one link in the series
fail, the doctrine of indulgences falls to the ground ; and con-
versely, if the doctrine of indulgences be thoroughly established,
it will be able to afford support to all these positions, which are
virtually involved in it. This illustrates how naturally the ex-
posure of indulgences led, in the hands of Luther, and under
the guidance of God's word and Spirit, to the full exposition of
the doctrine of a free and complete justification through faith in
the righteousness of Christ. The doctrine of indulgences, when
analyzed and investigated, leads us back, step by step, through
all the various questions which we have stated (of course in the
inverse order to that which we have pursued), and thus brings us
to the very threshold of the Scripture doctrine of justification ;
while that great doctrine, on the other hand, once clearly seen,
and steadily and faithfully applied, at once sweeps away all these
errors, and all the practices and arrangements, all the fraud and
imposture, which have been based upon them.

I do not mean to enter on any detailed refutation of this
gigantic system of heresy and fraud, as ray object in referring to
it was chiefly to illustrate how the Church of Rome follows out
her doctrines in their practical applications, and to point out the
connection subsisting among the different steps in the series ; and
thus to exhibit at once a specimen of the general policy of the
Church of Rome, in providing so fully, by the same processes,
for Satan's object, the ruining of men's souls, by leading them
to build upon a false foundation, and for the priest's object, the
enslaving of the consciences of the people; and a specimen of the
kind of proof on which many of her doctrines and practices are
based. Not one of the different positions which constitute the
steps in the series we have described, can be established by any-
thing like satisfactory scriptural evidence. Every one of them
can be proved to be opposed to the teaching of the word of God,
— some of them, indeed, to be in direct collision with funda-
mental scriptural principles respecting the vicarious satisfaction of
Christ, and the way of a sinner's salvation. There is one point

96 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

especially to be noticed, — viz., that while all these positions, when
viewed conjointly, form a well-contrived and compacted system,
yet that not one of them, even if proved, affords any direct evi-
dence in support of the succeeding one ; and that, therefore, each
of them must be established by its own distinct and appropriate
scriptural proof.

I need not dwell upon the illustration of this position ; but
there is a general observation of some importance in the Popish
controvei'sy which is suggested by it, and to which it may be
worth while to advert. There are several of the leading doctrines
of the Popish system which, in the absence of all direct scriptural
evidence in support of them, depend for their authority upon the
establishment of a series of positions, all of which must be dis-
tinctly and separately proved, and the failure in the proof of
any one of which overthrows the whole Popish teaching upon the
point. Now it is common, in such cases, for the defenders of
Popery to select that one of the various positions in support of
which they think that the largest amount of plausible scriptural
evidence can be adduced, and then to assume that the proof of
this one separate position, of itself, establishes the general con-
clusion. It has been shown, for instance, by Dr. Isaac Barrow,
in his great work on the supremacy of the Pope, that, in order
to establish that doctrine, seven distinct and independent positions
must be proved, each of them being necessary for the ultimate
result ; while Romanists scarcely undertake to establish them
all, and dwell almost exclusively upon two or three of them, in
support of which they think they can adduce something that
is plausible. The invocation of saints, in like manner, in the
absence of all direct scriptural evidence bearing upon the point
itself, can be based only upon a series of positions, each of which
must be established ; and yet Romish writers, in discussing this
subject, often talk as if they expected that the proof of this one
position — viz., that the saints in heaven offer up prayers for men
on earth — were to be received as prohatio probata of all that the
Church of Rome teaches and practises regarding it. So, in the
series of positions which we have described with reference to the
forgiveness of post-baptismal sin, — every one of which must be
proved by its own distinct and appropriate evidence, before the
Romish doctrine of indulgences can be established, — there are
several which they scarcely attempt or pretend to prove from

Sec. VII.] FORGIVENESS OF POST-BAPTISMAL SINS. 97

Scripture; while they seem to expect that the proof they adduce
in support of one or two of them shall be received as proving
them all, and establishing the important conclusion which hangs
upon them. Among these various positions, the one perhaps on
which they are fondest of enlarging in argument, because they
think they can most plausibly defend it from Scripture, is this,
— that the trials and afflictions of justified men are strictly penal
in their character ; and as this position is really not destitute of
some plausible scriptural evidence, it may be proper briefly to
advert to it.

It is conceded by Protestants, that all the sufferings which
men endure are in some sense punishments of sin, — traceable to
sin and demerit as their source or cause. It is further conceded
that the Scripture represents justified and righteous men as
bringing trials and afflictions upon themselves by their sins ;
afflictions which, it is intimated in Scripture, are in some measure
regulated, both as to their peculiar character and their severity,
by the sins of which such men have been guilty. Now these
concessions, which Scripture plainly enough requires, might not
unreasonably be regarded as sufficient to establish the conclusion,
that the providential afflictions of righteous men are truly and
properly penal, had we no further information given us in Scripture
upon the subject. But the conclusion is one which important
scriptural principles, and clear scriptural statements, prevent us
from receiving. The whole tenor of the scriptural representa-
tions with respect to the nature and consequences of forgiveness,
the state and condition of justified men, and the principles which
regulate all God's dealings with them, precludes the idea that
they are liable to, or that they in point of fact suffer at God's
hand, inflictions of a strictly penal character. "There is now no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus," — no liability to
punishment. Their sins have been entirely blotted out, and are
remembered no more against them. They have been received
finally and unchangeably into the enjoyment of God's favour.
They have been adopted as children into His family ; and the one
object to which all God's views concerning them, and all His
dealings toward them, are directed, is to promote their welfare by
making them more meet for the full enjoyment of His own pre-
sence. He has virtually laid aside, so far as they are concerned,
the character of a Judge, and assumed that of a Father. And in

3 — VOL. n. G

JUSTIFICATION.

[Chap. XXI.

accordance with these general principles, He is to be regarded,
when He sends them trials and sufferings, not as inflicting punish-
ment, strictly and properly so called, but merely as chastening,
correcting, disciplining them in the way He sees best fitted to
promote their true welfare. He is not exercising His justitia
vindicatrix in merely testifying His hatred against sin, by simply
inflicting pain upon the sinner. His only object is to promote
and secure the welfare of His children. The very idea of a penal
infliction, properly so called, is that of suffering inflicted for the
purpose of occasioning misery to the object of the infliction, be-
cause he has deserved it, and because it is intended that the
ordinary course of justice and of law should take effect upon him,
or, as it has been defined in the discussion of this subject, —
" vindicta propria est quando malum quod alicui infligitur, non
in bonum, sed in malum ejus infligitur." * And punishment, or
penal infliction, in this, its strict and proper sense, is wholly inap-
plicable to any of God's dealings with His own people.f

In short, we must include the whole of what Scripture teaches
upon this subject, and embody it, if possible, in one consistent and
harmonious doctrine. We cannot, in consistency with Scripture,
maintain that God's dealings with justified men, even when He
sends them trials and afllictions, are strictly and properly penal,
or directed to the object of merely inflicting upon them suffering,
because they have deserved it by their sin. And there is no great
difficulty in reconciling this principle with those scriptural views
upon which the Popish argument is based, and from which their
conclusion is deduced ; while that conclusion cannot be reconciled
with this principle, and indeed flatly contradicts it. All suffer-
ing is, in its general character, a punishment on account of sin ;
but this is not the only character it bears, — the only relation it
sustains ; and therefore it may not be in this character that it is
inflicted by God upon justified men. And as to the relation —
plainly indicated in some instances described in Scripture of God's
dealing with His people — between the peculiar character and de-
gree of the suffering inflicted upon them, and the sin which in
some sense produced or occasioned it, this admits without difficulty
of another solution besides that of the suffering being strictly and

* Ames. Bellarm. Enervat. torn. iii.
pp. 231, 232. Oxon. 1629.
t Calviu, Instit. lib. iii. c. iv. sec.

30 to the end ; and generally on this
whole subject, c. iv. and v.

Sec. VII.] FORGIVENESS OF POST-BAPTISMAL SINS.

properly penal. The character and degree of the suffering in-
flicted may have been regulated or determined by the preceding
sin, while yet the intended bearing and influence of the suffering
might be wholly prospective, and not retrospective ; and this upon
two grounds : first, the very best thing now, for the real good of
the individual who has sinned, — the first and most indispensable
thing for his future welfare, — may be, that he should be brought
under the influence of right impressions with respect to the sin
which he has committed, and learn, for his future guidance, the
lessons which it is fitted to teach ; and, secondly, the sin which he
has committed may be a fair measure or index of what he now
needs, — of what is truly, in the actual circumstances in which he
is placed, best fitted to promote his real welfare, and may thus, de
facto, regulate the character and degree of the suffering inflicted,
— even though this suffering, in its intended bearings and results,
has a regard only prospectively and correctively to future good,
and not retrospectively and penally to past sin. On these grounds,
we think it can be shown that there is nothing in Scripture which
necessarily requires us to admit the position (which was strenu-
ously opposed by all the Keformers), that the providential suffer-
ings or afflictions of righteous men are strictly and properly penal;
while, on the other hand, a full view of all that Scripture teaches
upon the subject, compels us to believe that it is not as strict and
proper punishments that they are inflicted, — although most cer-
tainly they are both fitted and intended, when viewed in connec-
tion with the sin that preceded and occasioned them, to produce
profound humility and self-abasement, and to lead to unceasing
watchfulness and waiting upon God.*

The first and fundamental position in the series we have
described, — that on which, as a basis, the whole series depends,-^
viz., that with respect to post-baptismal sin there is a reatus poence,
as distinguished from a reatus culpce, or that a temporal punish-
ment remains due after the proper guilt and consequent liability
to eternal punishment have been taken away in the sacrament of
penance, — rests wholly upon the proof adduced, that the providen-

* There is an Antinomian, as -well
as a Popish, error upon this point to
be guarded against. Some Antino-
mian s have maintained that God sees
no sin in His people, and does not

even correct or chasten them for their
sins. *

Vide Burgess on Justification, Part
i. Lee. 4, 5, 6 ; Gillespie's MisceV.any
Questions.

100 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXL

tial sufferings of justified and regenerate men are strictly and
properly penal. This first position, asserting a distinction with
reference to post-baptismal sins, between the reatus culpce and the
reatus posnce. has not in itself, as a general doctrine, any distinct,
direct scriptural evidence ; and Papists scarcely pretend that it has,
while Protestants undertake to show, not only that it is wholly
unsanctioned by Scripture, but that it is opposed to clear scrip-
tural statements, and to most important scriptural principles.
Papists profess to prove from Scripture that the providential
sufferings of righteous men are truly penal inflictions ; and from
that they draw the general conclusion, that temporal punishment
remains due by them, after their proper guilt, or culpa, or liability
to eternal punishment, has been taken away. It is not by any
means clear or certain that the conclusion is well founded in all
its extent, even though the premises should be proved or conceded.
But it is unnecessary to dispute this ; for the Reformers proved,
not only that there is no satisfactory evidence in Scripture that
the providential sufferings of righteous men are penal, but that
Scripture, when its whole teaching upon the subject is carefully
and deliberately examined in combination, contains abundant proof
that they are not possessed of a strictly and properly penal character.
Thus the sole foundation in argument of the great Popish prin-
ciple about a temporal punishment remaining due after the lia-
bility to eternal punishment has been removed by the sacrament
of penance, is overturned, and of course carries with it the whole
system of heresy, fraud, and imposture that is based upon it.

The other parts of the system, besides being left without any
foundation to rest upon, can be, each of them, singly and sepa-
rately disproved by satisfactory scriptural evidence. Human
satisfactions for, or instead of, punishment due to sin, and these
either personal or vicarious, rendered either by the sinners them-
selves, or by others in their room, and rendered either in this life
upon earth, or in the next in purgatory ; an inexhaustible treasure
of vicarious satisfactions upon earth, and a place of punishment
somewhere in the neighbourhood of hell, and both under the con-
trol of the Pope ; the penality of the prayers and the almsdeeds, as
well as of the providential sufferings, of righteous men, and their
actual endurance of punishment for a time in a future world ; —
all these are palpably opposed to most important truths plainly
taught us in the sacred Scriptures, and altogether constitute the

Sec. VIIL] THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 101

most marvellous system of falsehood and fraud that has ever
been invented.

We are too apt to look upon the Popish purgatory and in-
dulgences merely as fraudulent contrivances for enslaving men's
consciences, and swindling them out of their money ; but there is
something far deeper and more destructive about them than this
view of their character exhibits. They imply and involve the
whole system of erroneous doctrine which we have briefly de-
scribed. That system of doctrine may have produced purgatory
and indulgences, or they may have produced it, or, what is more
probable, both may have acted and reacted upon each other. But
however this may have been historically, it is certain that pur-
gatory and indulgences require all these gross corruptions of the
scriptural doctrine of the forgiveness of sins. They tend greatly
to strengthen and confirm those corruptions, and to give them a
deeper hold of men's minds. In this way, they serve as fully
and as effectually the purposes of Satan as of the priesthood, and
tend directly to endanger men's eternal welfare, by producing
and confirming erroneous conceptions of the scheme which God
lias devised and revealed for the salvation of sinners, and thus
leading them to exclude themselves from the benefit of its free
and gracious provisions. This is a general feature of the whole
Popish system.

Sec. 8. — The Merit of Good Works.

"We have explained and illustrated the way in which the
Church of Rome has drawn out its doctrine upon the subject of
justification into most important practical applications, so far as
concerns the topic of satisfaction and forgiveness of sin — laying
by this process a deep foundation for human satisfaction to God's
law — for purgatory and indulgences. We have now to advert to
the manner in which Romanists regulate the practical application
of their general doctrine, in its bearing upon the subject of merit,
and the procuring of the divine favour.

The doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject is this,
— that, after men are pardoned and regenerated in baptism, they
can, through divine grace, obey the whole law of God, so as not
to fall into any mortal sin, — which is practically, under the Popish
system, the same as into any sin, for venial sin is usually so ex-

102 JUSTIFICATION. [Cuap. XXL

plained as to be really no sin ; that, while they can thus abstain
from doing anything which really deserves God's wrath, they are
able, by their good works, to merit from God increase of grace
and eternal life ; that they can even do more, in the way of meri-
torious performance, than is necessary to escape from God'g wrath,
and to procure anything that may be needful for their own happi-
ness ; and that their works of supererogation, as they are called,
may be available for the benefit of others. We have already seen
that the Church of Rome underrated the magnitude and import-
ance of the change effected upon men's state or legal condition
when their sins are pardoned ; we now see how greatly she over-
rates the change effected upon their character and capacities of
obeying the divine law, when they are regenerated. The asser-
tion of their liability to a temporal punishment for their post-
baptismal sins after their guilt is remitted — so far as concerns
their desert of eternal punishment, and of the strict and proper
penality of the providential trials and sufferings to which they
are subjected — implies an underrating of the fulness and com-
pleteness of the pardon or forgiveness which God bestows for
Christ's sake, and of the blessed and filial relation into which
justified persons are brought ; while the assertion of their ability
to keep the whole law, and to perform good works that are truly
and properly meritorious — nay, even works of supererogation —
implies an overrating of the completeness of the sauctification
wrought upon men when they become the subjects of divine
grace. This difference illustrates an important general feature in
the character of the Popish system of theology with respect to
the way of a sinner's salvation, — viz., a tendency to throw into
the background what, from the nature of the case, must be God's,
and God's only, and to raise into prominence that which, though
it is admitted to be in some sense God's, is also in some sense
man's, and which, therefore, man will be able and disposed to
ascribe to himself, and to rest upon as his own. Forgiveness is
God's gift, and cannot well, from the nature of the case, be re-
presented in any other light. Men might indeed be able to do
something to induce God to bestow it upon them, or might be in
some measure indebted for it, in some sense, to the good offices
and kind intervention of a fellow-creature ; and there is much in
the Popish system of doctrine and practice fitted and intended to
foster both these notions. But the Church of Rome has not ven-

Sec. VIIT.] THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 103

tured very directly and explicitly to propound tliem. Oa the
other hand, holiness, obedience, and good works, though ascribed
in a general way to God's grace and the operation of His Spirit,
are also qualities and doings of men themselves, which exist in
them, and are in some sense theirs, — as possessed or effected by
them. And there is thus a ground on which, though magnifying
their importance and value, men may be led to form high ideas of
their own worth and excellence, and to rely much upon themselves
in matters connected with God and eternity.

We have already expounded two important principles taught
by all the Reformers, and anathematized by the Council of Trent,
and forming a sort of connecting link between the subject of
original sin and that of justification. The principles were these :
First, that there is nothing in men by nature, and before they
are justified and regenerated, but what is sinful, wholly and altO'
gether sinful, and deserving of God's wrath; and, second, that
there is nothing in men's character and actions, so long as they
continue on earth, even after they are forgiven and regenerated,
which is not stained or polluted with sinful imperfection, — which
has not about it something that deserves God's displeasure, and
that, viewed in itself, might justly expose men to punishment.
These two positions, if they are really taught in the word of God,
as we have shown they are, overturn from the foundation the
leading principles on which the whole Popish doctrine of justifi-
cation is based. It is with the second of them only that we have
now to do, in its bearing upon what Papists commonly call the
second justification, or the justijicatio justi, as distinguished from
the justijicatio impii, by which men who have been pardoned and
regenerated procure additional supplies of grace, both pardon-
ing and sanctifying, and thus become more righteous and more
happy. If it be true that all the actions, even of justified and
regenerate men, have something sinful about them, or are stained
with some sinful imperfection, it is quite plain that men cannot,
as the Church of Eome teaches, render perfect obedience to the
divine law ; and that their good works cannot, as the Council of
Trent affirmed they do, truly and properly deserve or merit in-
crease of grace and eternal life.

The merit of good works was an invention of the schoolmen ;
for though the fathers often applied the word merit to the actions
of regenerate men, — and though, of course, Papists quote the pas-

104 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

sages in which this term is so applied, in support of the doctrine
of their Cimrch, — it has been proved by Protestant writers, that
" to merit " is commonly used by them merely in the vague and
general sense of " to procure or obtain," and not as conveying
the Popish notion of meriting or deserving, in a strict or proper
sense. The schoolmen asserted the merit of good works in a
higher and more exact sense than that in which it had been
ascribed to them by the fathers, and indulged in many intricate
and useless speculations about the nature and ground of merit,
and the qualities and circumstances of actions necessary and
sufficient to make them truly and properly meritorious ; and, in
consequence, a good deal of matter of this sort has been intro-
duced into the discussion of this subject as carried on between
Protestants and Papists. Protestants contend, and most reason-
ably, that they are exempted from any necessity of considering
the Popish doctrine of the true and proper merit of good works
by the proof they adduce of the position to which we have re-
ferred about the sinful deficiency or imperfection attaching to
all the actions of justified men ; for this doctrine, if true, mani-
festly precludes the possibility of their being properly meritorious.
But as the Papists adduce, in support of their doctrine of the
proper merit of good works, some scriptural arguments which are
not destitute of plausibility, the Protestants have not declined to
examine this subject. We can make only a very few observa-
tions upon it.

There are two principal questions usually discussed under this
head : First, What are good works ? and, secondly. Are they
I truly and properly meritorious, as the Council of Trent asserts,
of God's favour, increase of grace, and eternal life ? First, What
are good works ? The Church of Kome having determined that
good works should be meritorious, resolved also to extend as widely
as possible — at least in certain directions — the sphere to which
this important quality of true and proper merit attached, by com-
prehending many things under the name of good works whose
claim to that designation Protestants refuse to admit, — such as
vows, penances, fastings, festivals, pilgrimages, processions, and a
ly' number of other observances of a similar kind, connected with
the rites and ceremonies of the Eomish Church, and all fitted
more or less directly to advance the interests of the system, and
to extend the influence of the priesthood. It is for the purpose

Sec. VIII.] THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 105

of contradicting and exposing the Popish notions upon this sub-
ject, that the chapter on " Good Works " in our Confession of
Faith* is introduced with the following position: "Good works
are only such as God hath commanded in His holy word, and not
such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of
blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention." This posi-
tion, the truth of which we need not stop to illustrate, cuts off
at once many of the works which the Church of Rome urges upon
men as good and meritorious.

It is common also, and quite pertinent, to discuss under this
head the .famous Popish distinction between commands of duty
and counsels of perfection, — a distinction which is the founda-
tion, doctrinally, of the whole monastic system. Papists hold
that, while there are many precepts and commands in Scripture
addressed to all, and equally binding upon all, there are also some
higher exercises of virtue, which are not universally commanded
or enjoined, but only counselled or recommended to those who
aspire to perfection ; and which, of course, are more abundantly
meritorious than those good works which are performed in
obedience to express and universal requirements. The chief of
these counsels of perfection are the voluntary renunciation of
property, of marriage, and of the power of regulating our own
actions ; and when these things are renounced, and especially
when the renunciation is sealed with a vow, — the vow, as they
call it, of poverty, chastity, and obedience, — they regard this as
a state of perfection which is highly meritorious, in which a very
large stock of merit may be laid up. Protestants have no great
difficulty in overturning from Scripture their whole distinction,
and all the particular instances to which it is applied, and are
thus able to maintain unbroken and unqualified their fundamental
position, that " good works are only such as God hath commanded
in His holy word;" and thus to overturn one of the foundations
on which the doctrine of merit and supererogation is based.

Protestants hold that regenerate men are bound to perform,
and do perform, good works, though Papists commonly represent
them as denying both these positions. They admit that the good
works men perform, are in substance, and as to their main cha-
racter and leading features, accordant with the requirements of

* C. xvi.

106 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

God's law, and tlicrefore in some sense pleasing and acceptable
in His sight ; but they maintain that they are not meritorious, or
possessed of true and proper merit, — that they are not meritorious,
as the Council of Trent asserts, of eternal life, — and that they
never surpass, either in number or in excellence, what the law of
God requires. Independently of the consideration which was
formerly adverted to, and which is absolutely and manifestly in-
consistent with the ascription of merit, — viz., that even the best
works of regenerate men are stained with sinful imperfection, —
Protestants rest their denial of the meritoriousness of good works
mainly upon these two grounds: First, that men are under a
positive obligation to perform them, and are not at liberty to
neglect them ; and, secondly, that they bear no proportion to the
result which they are said to merit, — viz., the favour of God and
eternal life. It seems essential to the idea of true and proper
merit, that the actions to which it is ascribed be such as are not
incumbent, as matter of imperative and unavoidable obligation,
on those by whom they are performed ; that they could omit or
neglect them without thereby necessarily committing sin, and
without thereby justly exposing themselves to punishment. True
and proper merit, therefore, cannot attach to any action which
God's law expressly enjoins. It might indeed possibly attach, so
far as this argument is concerned, to counsels of perfection. But
then, first, there is no such class of actions which it is competent
to men to perform ; and then, secondly, Papists who maintain
that there is, do not restrict merit to actions of this class, but
extend it — i.e., the possibility of it — to all the good works of
regenerate men.

On this ground, then, no actions done in obedience to God's
law, even though fully accordant with what the law requires, can
possess true and proper merit, so as to deserve anything at God's
hand ; and still less, in the second place, can they merit eternal
life, from the total want of equality, nay, from the infinite dis-
proportion between the good actions of men, even though they
were free from all sinful imperfection, and the result which they
are said to deserve. In addition to these general considerations,
which evidently exclude or disprove true and proper merit, there
is abundance of direct Scripture statement to prove that no man
ever merited anything from God ; and that every man is, at all
times, indebted to God's wnmerited mercy and kindness, for every

Sec. VIII.] THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 107

gift he receives, for every favour he enjoys, for every hope he
entertains.

I have said that the Popish doctrine of the true and proper
merit of good works is not altogether destitute of what may seem,
at first sight, to be plausible scriptural evidence. It must be
plain, however, that with such an amount of scriptural evidence
against it as that to which we have briefly referred, as establish-
ing the positions above laid down, it could be admitted only if
principles or statements in support of it could be produced from
Scripture, of a very clear and explicit description, — principles
bearing very directly and conclusively upon the precise point in
dispute, — statements which cannot be explained away by any
reasonable or legitimate process, and which cannot admit of any
other meaning than that which the Papists ascribe to them. Of
course the Scripture proof they adduce consists in those state-
ments which plainly indicate some connection as actually subsist-
ing, according to God's arrangements, between good works and
admission into heaven ; and especially those which represent
heaven and eternal life as the reward of good works {iiLa9o<i^
merces). Now, here again, it might be admitted, as in the ques-
tion formerly adverted to about the strictly penal character of the
providential sufferings of good men, that had we no other infor-
mation given us in Scripture upon the subject, these statements
might not unreasonably be regarded as sanctioning the Popish
principle, that good works are meritorious of eternal life. But
here also, as there, we contend, — first, that this Popish view of
the nature or character of the connection subsisting between good
works and eternal life, is wholly precluded by other scriptural
principles and statements ; and, secondly, that there is no great
difficulty in reconciling the representations on which the Popish
conclusion is based, with the Protestant principle that they are
not meritorious of eternal life ; while, on the other hand, it is not
possible to reconcile those scriptural representations on which the
Protestant conclusion is founded, with the Popish principle that
they are. Eternal life is, no doubt, represented in Scripture as
the reward of good works ; and Papists allege that merit and
reward are correlative ideas, the one necessarily implying the
other. But eternal life is also represented in Scripture as the
free gift of God ; and Protestants contend that its being a free
gift, necessarily excludes the idea of its being truly merited by

108 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

good works ; and that its being a reward, does not necessarily
imply the reverse. This is the state of the question. I cannot
enter into any detailed discussion of it, but would only remark, —
first, that it has been proved that the idea of reward is, in several
instances, introduced and applied in Scripture in cases where
there was certainly nothing meritorious, and that, consequently,
merit is not its specific and invariable correlative ; and, secondly,
that when the apostle says,* " To him that worketh is the reward
not reckoned of grace, but of debt," he plainly and unequivocally
intimates that the word reward is taken in two different senses ;
and that a thing may be truly represented as a reward, when he
who receives it had no claim to it, had done nothing whatever to
merit it, but had obtained it of grace without merit. Since this
distinction has the express sanction of Scripture, and since Scrip-
ture also affords abundant materials to prove that the reward of
eternal life is given of grace and not of debt, we are not only
warranted, but bound, if we would submit fully to the whole
teaching of Scripture upon this subject, to apply the distinction,
and to regard it not only as legitimate, but imperative, to believe
that the circumstance of eternal life being represented as the
reward of good works, was not intended to convey the idea that
it is merited by them ; and to maintain, without any limitation
or modification, the great scriptural principle, that eternal life,
and everything that conduces to or prepares for it, is altogether
the free gift of God's unmerited kindness through Christ.

This doctrine of merit, then, is another important point in
which the Church of Rome has grievously perverted the word of
God, — perverted it in a way in which no other sect has ventured
to follow her example, since even Socinians reject the idea of
merit, — perverted it in a way which has a most direct and power-
ful tendency to produce a state of mind and feeling diametrically
opposed to what the whole word of God inculcates, and fitted to
exert a most injurious influence upon men's spiritual welfare.

Bellarmine, after labouring to establish the doctrine of the
Council of Trent, — that the good works of regenerate men are
truly meritorious of eternal life, — proposes to investigate, dis-
tinctly and separately, this question. How far reliance ought to be
placed upon merits — "quatenusfiduciain mentis collocari possit."t

* Rom. iv. 4. f Bellarm. Dc Justljicat. lib. r, c. vii.

Sec. VIII.] THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 109

He represents, and very truly, the heretics, as he calls them, as
unanimous in maintaining that no reliance whatever is to be
placed upon merits, and then proceeds to ridicule the earnestness
of Calvin and other Protestants in asserting this, and to try to
prove what he calls the doctrine of the Catholic Church, — viz.,
that though men ought indeed to place their chief confidence in
God, yet that they should also place some reliance upon their own
merits, " prsecipuam quidem spem, et fiduciam in Deo ponendam
esse ; aliquam tamen etiam in mentis poni posse." Many Popish
writers have asserted this principle more broadly and offensively
than Bellarmine has done; and, to do him justice, he seems almost
ashamed of the doctrine which his church obliged him to defend ;
for he concludes with a remarkable statement, which has been
often quoted, and which is not only a virtual retractation of this
particular sentiment, but really amounts, in substance and spirit,
to a virtual repudiation of the whole five books he had written
upon justification. It is in these words : " Propter incertitudinem
proprise justitise, et periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est, fidu-
ciam totam in sola Dei misericordia, et benignitate reponere."
This is a very interesting and important declaration, especially as
indicating very plainly, though indirectly, the true character and
tendency of Popish doctrine, and the sense entertained of the
danger of practically applying and acting upon it, by the ablest
of its defenders. If men have merits, — true and proper merits, —
as the Council of Trent expressly asserts, and as Bellarmine had
laboured to prove, they are entitled to rely upon them ; and from
all we know of human nature and the history of the world, we
may be assured that they will rely upon them, instead of placing
their whole confidence in the sole mercy and kindness of God.
The doctrine of the Church of Rome warrants this, nay, requires
it; and men who are ignorant of the word of God, and ignorant
of themselves, will have no difficulty in receiving and applying
this teaching. When they are taught that they can truly and
properly merit by their good works the favour of God and eternal
life, they will not be deterred from relying upon these merits by
a prudential caution, such as Bellarmine has given, — a mere
tutissimum est, — a hint that they had better not, and that, all
things considered, it is safer to abstain. The whole word of God
teaches us that we should place no reliance upon our own merits,
and rest our whole confidence upon the alone mercy and kindness

110 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

of God and the work of Christ. The Church of Rome denies
this great principle, and inculcates a doctrine 'directly opposed
to it in substance and tendency. We must believe the Romish
doctrine of merit, for the Council of Trent requires this, under
an anathema. But Bellarmine is constrained at last virtually to
admit, that though we must believe with the Catholic Church,
it is safer to feel and act with heretics, — to feel and act as if we
disbelieved the Council of Trent, and concurred in opinion with
the Reformers. It is safest to rely exclusively upon the mercy
and kindness of God ; and that doctrine is to be received as
scriptural and true which inculcates and produces this exclusive
reliance upon Him ; while that doctrine is to be rejected as un-
questionably false, and as unspeakably dangerous, which sanc-
tions, and has a direct tendency to produce, any reliance upon
our own merits for the enjoyment of God's favour and the
possession of eternal life.

In regard to works of supererogation, the Council of Trent has
not formally and explicitly asserted their possibility and reality.
The responsibility of the Church of Rome for the doctrine that
men may do more, in the way of obedience to God's law, than is
necessary in order to escaping wholly from the consequences of
their own sins, and meriting heaven for themselves, is deduced
inferentially, though satisfactorily and conclusively, from her
teaching concerning the distinction between commands of duty
and counsels of perfection, — concerning vicarious human satisfac-
tions,— and especially concerning the general treasury of merits,
composed indiscriminately of the superfluous merits of Christ and
the saints, and the use and application of the contents of this
treasury as the ground and foundation of indulgences. The
generality of approved Romish writers have plainly taught the
doctrine of supererogation, though in modern times they do not
usually give so much prominence as they used to do, either to it or
to the general treasury of the church. Moehler, in his Symbol-
ism* describes it " as that remarkable doctrine . . . which cer-
tainly, like every other that hath for centuries existed in the world,
... is sure to rest upon some deep foundation." He adduces
no other positive evidence in support of it, and this is not sufficient.
It is a remarkable doctrine, and it does rest upon a deep founda-

* SijmboUsm, vol. i. p. 244.

Sec. IX.] TENDENCY OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE. HI

tion; but this deep foundation is nothing but the natural tendency
of fallen and depraved men to think of themselves more highly
than they ought to think, and to go about to establish a righteous-
ness of their own. He does not attempt to answer the scriptural
arguments against it, and tries to evade the objections against it
from experience, merely by a misapplication of the well-known
principle, that " Christians of a very high stamp appear to men of
a lower grade of perfection as enthusiasts, as men of heated fancy
and distempered mind;" while he alleges, with ludicrous compla-
cency, that "the tenderness and delicacy" of this doctrine "eluded
the perception of the Reformers." But it is unnecessary to dwell
upon this doctrine, so remarkable, so deep-seated, so tender, and
so delicate. It may be sufficient to quote concerning it the follow-
ing extract from Melancthon's Commonplaces, — an extract which,
in spirit and style, very much resembles what might have been
expected from Luther, and which, perhaps, may be regarded
as giving some countenance to Moehler's insinuation about the
bluntness and coarseness of the perceptions of the Reformers
upon this topic: "This is not a human notion, but an absolute
sarcasm of the devil, mocking and deriding the blindness into
which he has betrayed us; that, when God has published His
law, to show for what perfection man was created, and into what
ruin he has fallen, the devil should put such an irony" or drollery
'' upon us, as to persuade us that now, in our present ruined state,
we can even go beyond that law." *

Sec. 9. — Practical Tendency of the Popish Doctrine of
Justification.

We have now completed our survey of the doctrine of the
Church of Rome, as contrasted with that of the Reformers, on
the vitally important subject of justification, or the forgiveness
and acceptance of sinners in the sight of God, — on everything
bearing on that change of state in relation to God and His law,
which is indispensable to their eternal welfare.

We have found that there is good ground to believe that the
Council of Trent has taught — and that of course the Church of

* Scott, Continuation of Milner, vol. ii. p. 237 ; Melancthon, Opera, torn.
i. p. 177.

112 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

Eome is pledged irrevocably to maintain — doctrines upon this
subject which are inconsistent with the teaching of the word of
God ; erroneous and anti-scriptural views regarding the nature
and import of justification, — the ground or basis on which it rests,
— and the way and manner in which men individually become
possessed of it. This consideration of itself, independently of the
importance, absolute or comparative, of the particular topics in-
volved in the Komish doctrine of justification as a whole, affords
quite sufficient reason why we should reject the claims which the
Church of Rome puts forth to be received as the mother and mis-
tress of all churches, — as the infallible expounder of divine truth ;
and why we should abandon her communion, and seek or provide
for ourselves a purer dispensation of the word of life. The sub-
ject is, from its very nature, — from its direct and immediate bear-
ing upon the spiritual and eternal welfare of men, — one of primary
importance in a practical point of view; and all error concerning
it must be dangerous and injurious. Indeed, it may be said that
the leading object or end of the whole inspired word of God is to
unfold to men, — first, what is their state and condition by nature ;
and, secondly, what provision God has made for saving them from
this state, and in what way men individually become interested in
this provision, and partakers in its blessed results. On the first
of these great heads of doctrine — the condition and character
of men by nature — the Church of Rome acted, as we have had
occasion to explain, with a good deal of caution ; while in regard
to the second, though not laying aside altogether her cautious and
insidious mode of procedure, she has ventured more boldly and
decidedly \o corrupt the truth revealed in the word of God, and
to inculcate erroneous views upon points bearing immediately
upon men's relation to God and their eternal destinies, — to furnish
unsound and misleading information upon the great questions,
How may man be just before God? and. What must we do to
be saved ? In introducing this subject, we said that the Church
of Rome held some general scriptural principles upon this sub-
ject, which, if honestly and fully followed out, would have led to
much sounder views upon the whole matter than the Council of
Trent has inculcated ; and that the great general charge adduced
against her by the Reformers was, that, in the more detailed ex-
position of her views, and in the practical arrangements and re-
quirements which she has based upon them, she has neutralized

Sec. IX.] TENDENCY OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE. 113

all that was sound and scriptural in the general principles which
she conceded, and has thus introduced important perversions of
scriptural truth. The great general scriptural truths which she
concedes upon this suhject are, — that the forgiveness of sinners,
and their admission to the enjoyment of God's favour, are to be
traced to the mercy and kindness of God, and to tlie work of
Christ as Mediator. These are great truths ; and when they are
honestly and fully held and applied, they are fitted, as instru-
ments in the hand of God's Spirit, to produce all those things
that accompany salvation, — all those things that are necessary td
prepare men for admission into the enjoyment of God's presence.
It is in virtue of her teaching these great truths that salvation
is possible in the Church of Rome, as Protestants have always
admitted that it is. The man who honestly believes, and fully
and faithfully applies, these great general truths, not only may,
but, according to God's arrangements, must be saved ; and since
the Church of Rome does inculcate these truths, and does not
formally and expressly teach what explicitly and palpably contra-
dicts them, Protestants have never had any hesitation about ad-
mitting the possibility of men in the Church of Rome really and '
practically resting only upon the mercy of God and the work of
Christ, and so attaining to salvation in the way which God has
appointed.

When, however, we attend more closely and particularly to
the detailed exposition of the views of the Church of Rome upon
this subject, and to the practical applications she makes of them,
we can discern a great deal that tends to obscure and pervert
these great general truths, — to throw them into the background,
— to prevent them from exercising their natural and appropi'iate
influence, and to promote a general state of mind and feeling, the
reverse of what they are fitted to produce. The leading allega-
tions which Protestants have adduced and established against the
full and detailed scheme of Popish doctrine upon this subject are
these : First, that It excludes the vicarious work of Christ, In-
cluding His satisfaction and obedientie, from its riglitful place In
the matter of a sinner's justification, and thus tends to involve
the whole subject of the way and manner in which Christ's work
bears at once upon God's act in bestowing, and men's act in
receiving, pardon and acceptance. In vagueness, obscurity, and
confusion ; and, secondly, that It assigns to men's own doings in
3 — VOL. II. H

114 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

the matter a place and influence which they are wholly unfitted
to sustain, and thus tends to lead men to go about to estabhsh a
righteousness of their own, instead of doing what is indispensable
to their salvation, — namely, submitting tliemselves to the right-
eousness of God, the righteousness of Jesus Christ which is of
God by faith ; — and to cherish a feeling of self-righteousness
and self-dependence. The Council of Trent, aware that these
charges had been adduced against the Romish doctrine by the
Reformers, and that there was at least some appearance of ground
for them, wind up their whole deliverance upon the various topics
comprehended under the head of justification in their thirty-third
or last canon, in the following words : " If any one saith, that
by the Catholic doctrine touching justification, by this holy Synod
set forth in this present decree, the glory of God or the merits of
our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not
rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory, in fine, of God
and of Jesus Christ, are rendered (more) illustrious ; let him be
anathema."* And Calvin's answer to this canon, in his Anti-
dote, to which I have had repeated occasion to refer, is in these
words : " An ingenious caution, truly, to prevent every man
from seeing what all see. They have almost entirely frustrated
or made void the glory of God and the grace of Christ together ;
and at the same time they forbid, under a curse, any one to
imagine that they have derogated in the least from either. This
is just as if any one should kill a man in the open market, in
the sight of all men, and then should enjoin that no one should
believe in the reality of the murder which all had seen committed.
These men clearly show their true character, by trying to deter
men by anathema from venturing to perceive that impiety of
which they themselves were conscious." f Perhaps this striking
statement of Calvin's, though true in the main, scarcely takes
sufficiently into account the skill and caution with which the
decree of the Council of Trent upon this subject was framed,
and applies more exactly to the general strain of doctrine and
sentiments that prevailed in the ordinary public teaching of the
Romish Church. Enough, however, has, I trust, been said to
show that, in the decrees and canons of the sixth session of the

* Sess. vi. Canon xxxiii., Water- I t Antidot. in Canon, xxxiii.
worth's translation. vi.

Sec. IX.] TENDENCY OP THE POPISH DOCTRINE. 115

Council of Trent, there is much that contradicts the teaching of
the word of God upon the most important of all subjects, — that
gives a most erroneous view of the plan which God has devised,
executed, and revealed for saving sinners, — a view fitted to exert
an injurious influence upon their spiritual welfare, and to en-
danger the salvation of their souls ; — and that, of course, the
Church of Rome incurred fearful guilt, and became more deeply
and hopelessly apostate than ever, by deliberately, solemnly, and
unchangeably rejecting those great scriptural principles concerning
the way of a sinner's salvation, which, under the guidance of the
Spirit of God, the Reformers were made the instruments of re-
viving and restoring, and pressing again upon the attention of men.

We cannot fully understand the bearing and tendency of the
Romish system, unless we view its formal doctrinal statements
in connection with the known principles and tendencies of human
nature ; and observe also how Papists, in the application of their
doctrines, and in the practical arrangements and outward ob-
servances which are based upon them, have most carefully and
skilfully made provision for fostering and strengthening tenden-
cies of an erroneous and dangerous description. The view we
have given of the doctrine formally professed by the Church of
Rome, upon the leading topics involved in the exposition of justi-
fication, discloses some very important corruptions of the system
unfolded in Scripture, as being that which God has provided and
revealed for securing men's deliverance and salvation, and im-
parting to them the blessings necessary for that end. This must
necessarily be very injurious and very dangerous in its practical
bearing upon men's opinions and conduct with respect to the way
of salvation. But the full extent of its injurious and dangerous
tendency is brought out only when the system is contemplated in
connection with the natural tendencies of depraved men.

One of the strongest and most universal tendencies of men in
their fallen and depraved condition, is to go about to establish a
righteousness of their own, — to rely upon what they themselves
are, or do, or can do, for procuring the forgiveness of their sins
and the enjoyment of God's favour. That this tendency is
natural to fallen men, and is deep-seated in their moral constitu-
tion, is abundantly proved by a survey of the religions of heathen-
ism and of corrupted Judaism. This tendency was openly and
decidedly opposed by the inspired apostles, as going far to neu-

116 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

tralize and counteract the fundamental principles, and to frustrate
the practical objects, of the only true method of salvation. The
Apostle Paul's account of the cause or reason of the partial
success of his efforts to promote the salvation of his kinsmen ac-
cording to the flesh, is full of instruction and warning upon this
subject. It is this, that they, being ignorant of God's righteous-
ness,— i.e., of the divine method of justification through the per-
fect righteousness, which God has provided, — and going about to
establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves
to the righteousness of God, and of course have forfeited the
blessings which were offered to them, and have put away from
them eternal life. This is the great difficulty which all who are
labouring for the salvation of sinners have still to encounter, and
which is found to exist in peculiar strength in those who have
been subjected to the full action of the Romish system of doctrine
and practice. The influence of this tendency, in not only leading
men practically to reject the gospel for themselves and their own
salvation, but speculatively to obscure and pervert its system of
doctrine, was very early and extensively exhibited in the Church,
and was most fully developed in the general character of the
system of doctrine and practice that generally prevailed in the
Church of Rome before the Reformation. After the true doc-
trine of Scripture had been fully brought out by the Reformers,
the Council of Ti'ent, though alive to the importance of avoiding
what was grossly offensive in statement, and of evading the argu-
ments adduced by the Reformers from the word of God, against
the notions that then generally prevailed in the Church of Rome,
did not hesitate to lay down many positions which are obviously
fitted .powerfully to strengthen this tendency, and to give it a
firmer hold of men's minds. We cannot now dwell again at any
length upon the different doctrines which enter into the Romish
system of justification, for the purpose of illustrating this ten-
dency as attaching to them ; and it is not very necessary, because,
in spite of the anathema of the council, it may be asserted that
the tendency of its doctrines to derogate from the glory of God's
grace, and from the efficacy and sufficiency of the satisfaction and
obedience of Christ, is abundantly manifested. But we may re-
peat, that the Council of Trent confounds justification and sancti-
fication, — denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the
immediate ground, or cause, or reason of God's act in pardoning

Sec. IX.] TENDENCY OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE. 117

and accepting sinners, — substitutes in its place a personal in-
herent righteousness of our own, — represents six other virtues, as
they call them, as standing in the very same relation to justifica-
tion as faith does, — the whole seven equally and alike being de-
clared to prepare and dispose men to justification, — leaves room
on purpose for allowing Romanists to hold, as almost all Romish
writers do, that tliey deserve justification of congruity, — explains
■ the special prominence assigned to faith in Scripture, on the
ground of its being the source or root of the other virtues ; — and,
finally, ascribes to men, when once justified, a power of making
satisfaction to God for the temporal punishment due to their sins,
and of strictly and properly meriting or deserving at His hand
increase of grace and eternal life. The confounding of justifica-
tion and renovation or sanctification, tends to involve the whole
subject in obscurity and confusion, and to diminish men's sense
of the necessity and importance of a change in their judicial re-
lation to God and His law, us a distinct and definite step in the
process by which their salvation is effected. It tends also, in the
case of men who have been justified, — as is strikingly exhibited
in the lives and writings of the Jansenists, who were the best and
holiest men, and the soundest theologians, the Romish Church
has ever produced, — to deprive them of legitimate comfort and
enlargement of heart, to engender a spirit of bondage and servile
fear, and to involve them in foolish, injurious, and degrading
observances in the way of penance and mortification.

The denial of the direct and immediate bearing of the vica-
rious work of Christ upon God's act in pardoning and accepting
sinners, — the substitution in its room of a personal righteousness
of our own, while the work of Christ is regarded as bearing upon
the result only indirectly, by procuring in some way for men the
infusion of the personal righteousness which is the only formal
cause or ground of justification, — not only obscures and perverts
the true foundation of the whole process, by throwing its most
essential feature into the backxiround, but has also the most direct
and powerful tendency to lead men to rely upon what is in some
sense their own, and what they will be very prone to regard as
solely, or at least principally, their own, or something wrought in
them or done by them. This tendency is obviously confirmed by
the representation given of the function and operation of faith :
the subordinate place assigned to it, on the one hand, in classing it

118 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

along with half a dozen of other virtues which flow from it ; and,
on the other, the exalted place assigned to it, as well as to them,
in exerting some meritorious efficacy in procuring the result, — in
operating in the matter of justification by reason of its own worth
or excellency. And when all this is viewed in connection with
the Romish doctrine of human satisfaction and proper merit in
the case of men already justified, what can be reasonably expected
but that Romanists should be practically and principally relying
upon the doings and deservings of themselves and others, for the
forgiveness of their sins and the enjoyment of God's favour? All
this tends to strengthen and confirm, in place of checking and
subduing, men's natural tendency to self-righteousness and self-
dependence ; and the doctrine, thus formally and explicitly taught,
viewed in connection with this natural tendency, is obviously
fitted to endanger men's spiritual and eternal welfare, by leading
them to abstain from doing what, according to God's revealed
arrangements, is indispensable to their happiness, — to build their
hopes upon a false foundation, — and to cherish a habitual state of
mind and feeling which prevents them from giving to the grace
of God and the work of Christ the glory which is due to them.

There is in the Romish system such an acknowledgment of
the grace of God and the work of Christ, as in some way con-
cerned in the matter, as to affect somewhat the perfect accuracy of
Calvin's illustration derived from the case of a murder committed
openly in the market ; but, on this very account, the scheme is all
the more insidious and the more dangerous : for while it is true,
on the one hand, that the general acknowledgment that the grace
of God and the merits of Christ, which the Council of Trent per-
mits, may be applied and improved by some for the salvation of
their souls, the other doctrines with which this acknowledgment
is accompanied and obscured, tend, on the other, to lead men in
general in a wrong direction, and to expose them to serious danger.
It is so obvious that, in the sacred Scriptures, the forgiveness and
acceptance of sinners are ascribed chiefly to the grace of God and
the work of Christ, that this could scarcely be formally and ex-
plicitly denied by any who admitted the divine authority of the
Bible. In these circumstances, the ingenuity of the great enemy
of souls was directed to the object of preserving this general
acknowledgment in words and outward profession, but at the
same time counteracting and neutralizing it in its practical ten-

Sec. IX.] TENDENCY OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE. 119

dencj. To this the whole system of Popish doctrine and practice
is directed, and for the accomplishment of all this it is admirably
fitted. It deludes men with an appearance and a profession of
referring their salvation to God and Christ, while it enables them
to indulge their natural tendency to rely upon themselves. If
any opening is left for the indulgence of this tendency, it will be
sure to insinuate itself, and to exert a perverting and dangerous
influence upon men's opinions, feelings, and conduct. The doc-
trine of the Scripture shuts up every chink through which any
feeling of self-righteousness and self-dependence could be intro-
duced, by representing men as wholly worthless and wholly help-
less, and by ascribing their deliverance and salvation, in all its
causes and in all its results, to the grace of God and the work of
Christ. The Church of Rome throws down the barriers which
have thus been erected, and practically divides the work of men's
salvation between God and themselves ; and when men are en-
couraged formally and directly to make such a partition, they are
not likely to be very careful about preserving what they admit
in words to be the lawful shares of the respective parties, and
they will not hesitate to take the largest portion to themselves.

It is evidently a fundamental principle in God's arrangements,
in connection with the everlasting destinies of the human race,
that men are to be saved by or through knowing and applying
the provision which He has made for saving them. Ignorance
or error, therefore, in regard to the nature and bearing of this
provision, must be at once sinful and dangerous, as implying a
refusal to submit to the authority of the revelation which God
has made of His mind and purposes, and as tending to frustrate
the great practical object to which the provision was directed.
And the ignorance or error must be the more sinful and the more
dangerous, according as it is connected more directly and imme-
diately with the fundamental principles of the provision, — with
the leading features of the state of feeling and the course of
conduct which the contemplation of the provision is fitted to
produce. If God, as the only means of saving sinners in a way
consistent with the attributes of His nature, the principles of His
moral government, and the honour of His law, sent His Only-
begotten into the world to suffer and die for them, it must be
of the last importance that men should distinctly and correctly
understand liow it is that the mediatorial work of Christ bears

120 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.

upon their relation to God and their everlasting destiny; and
what is the state of feeling they ought to cherish, and the course
of conduct they ought to pursue, in regard to it. We have
seen that the Protestant doctrine of justification presents a con-
sistent and harmonious scheme, in full accordance with all the
general views unfolded to us in Scripture concerning the un-
changeable character of God, and the natural condition and
character of men, — ascribing to the work of Christ a prominence
and efficacy suited to the exalted character of so extraordinary a
provision, — leading men to seek and to receive salvation, and all
that it involves, as the free and unmerited gift of God's grace, and
to live thereafter under a deep and heartfelt conviction that they
are not their own, but bought with a price, — and teaching them
that the one object which they are bound to aim at is to show forth
the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His
marvellous light ; while the Popish system, of throwing the work of
Christ into the background, and of ascribing much in the matter
to what is done by men themselves, by telling them that they can
do much to procure, and even merit, for themselves the blessings
they need, tends to produce a different mode of acting, and a
different state of feeling, — tends to lead men to go about to
/establish their own righteousness, instead of simply receiving the
righteousness which God has provided for and offered to them,
and to cherish a feeling of confidence and dependence upon them-
selves,— a feeling inconsistent at once with that profound sense
of obligation and that depth of filial affection towards God which
are the distinguishing characteristics of true believers. Upon the
ground of the general acknowledgment of the grace of God and
the work of Christ which the Council of Trent permits, men may,
even in the Romish communion, be practically resting upon the
mercy of God and the righteousness of Christ. But the tendency
of the whole Popish system, when fully imbibed and applied, is to
lead men to build upon a different, a false foundation ; while the
very profession they are permitted to make of relying upon God's
mercy and Christ's work may just conceal from them the truth,
that they are practically relying upon themselves, and thus only
increase the danger to which all their strongest natural tendencies
expose them, of disregarding and rejecting the only provision
whereby guilty and fallen men can be saved.

CHAPTER XXII.

THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.

We have referred only incidentally to the doctrine of the Church
of Home as to the bearing and influence of the sacraments in the
justification of sinners. But as this is a very important feature
of the Romish system of theology, — as the Romish doctrine on
this subject was strenuously opposed by the Reformers, — and as
the doctrine of sacramental justification, as it has been called, has
been revived in our own day, and been zealously maintained even
by men who have not yet joined the Church of Rome, — it may
be proper to make some further observations upon it.

Sec. 1. — Sacramental Grace.

The natural enmity of the human heart to the principles and
plans of the divine procedure in regard to the salvation of sinners,
— the natural tendency to self-righteousness which is so strongly
and universally characteristic of mankind, — has appeared in two
different forms : first, a tendency to rely for the forgiveness of
sin and the enjoyment of God's favour upon what men themselves
are, or can do; and, secondly, a tendency to rely upon the inter-
vention and assistance of other men or creatures, and upon out-
ward ordinances. Heathenism exhibited both ; and the corrupted
Judaism of our Saviour's days — the prevailing party of the Phari-
sees— exhibited both. The Sadducees of the apostolic days, and
the Socinian and the rationalistic, or the semi-infidel and the
infidel, forms of professed Christianity in modern times, have
exhibited only the first of these tendencies, in different degrees of
grossness on the one hand, or of plausibility on the other ; while
Popery, like heathenism and corrupted Judaism, exhibits a combi-
nation of both. There appeared in the church at an early period,

122 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

a tendency to speak of the nature, design, and effects of the
sacraments, or the " tremendous mysteries," as some of the fathers
call them, in a very inflated and exaggerated style, — a style very
different from anything we find in Scripture upon the subject.
This tendency increased continually as sound doctrine disappeared
and vital religion decayed, until, in the middle ages, Christianity
was looked upon by the great body of its professors as a system
which consisted in, and the whole benefits of which were con-
nected with, a series of outward ceremonies and ritual observances.
The nature, design, and effects of the sacraments occupied a large
share of the attention of the schoolmen ; and indeed the exposi-
tion and development of what is sometimes called in our days the
" sacramental principle," may be justly regarded as one of the prin-
cipal exhibitions of the anti-scriptural views and the perverted
ingenuity of the scholastic doctors. An exaggerated and unscrip-
tural view of the value and efficacy of the sacraments was too
deeply ingrained into the scholastic theology, and was too much
in accordance with the usual policy of the Church of Rome,
and the general character and tendency of her doctrine, to admit
of the Council of Trent giving any sanction to the sounder
views upon the subject which had been introduced by the Re-
formers, and especially by the Calvinistic section of them, — for
Luther always continued to hold some defective and erroneous
notions upon this point. The doctrine of the Church of Rome
upon this subject is set forth in the first part of the decree of the
seventh session of the Council of Trent,, which treats de Sacramen-
tis in genere, and in other statements made in treating of some of
the sacraments individually. The leading features of their doctrine
are these : — that, through the sacraments of the Church, all true
righteousness either begins, or when begun, is increased, or when
lost, is repaired ; that men do not obtain from God the grace of
justification by faith alone without the sacraments, or at least
without a desire and wish to receive them ; that the sacraments
confer grace always upon all who receive them, unless they put
an obstacle in the way (ponunt obicem), — that is, as they usually
explain it, unless they have, at the time of receiving them, a de-
liberate intention of committing sin, — and that they confer grace
thus universally ex opere operato, or by some power or virtue
given to them, and operating through them. And with respect,
more particularly, to the forgiveness of sin, the Church of Rome,

Sec. I.] SACEAMENTAL GRACE. 123

teaches, as we have seen, that baptism is the instrumental cause
of justification, — that all previous sins are certainlj' forgiven in
baptism, — and that no sin is forgiven, not even the original sin of
those who die in infancy, without it; — and, finally, that post-
baptismal sin is forgiven only in the sacrament of penance, that
is, through the confession of the sinner and the absolution of the
priest.

This is just, in substance, the doctrine which is taught by
the modern Tractarians, under the name of the "sacramental
principle." Mr. Newman, in his Lectures on Justification^ pub-
lished several years before he left the Church of England, gives
the following summary of his views upon the subject : " Justifica-
tion comes through the Sacraments ; is received by faith ; consists
in God's inward presence, and lives in obedience ;"* and again:
" Whether we say we are justified by faith, or by works, or by
Sacraments, all these but mean this one doctrine, that we are
justified by grace, which is given through Sacraments, impetrated
by faith, manifested in works." f He admits, indeed, that, in
some sense, faith is the internal, while baptism is the external,
instrument of justification; but, in explaining their respective
offices and functions as instruments in the production of the
result, he ascribes to faith a position of posteriority and sub-
ordination to baptism. " The Sacraments," he says, " are the
immediate, faith is the secondary, subordinate, or representative
instrument of justification." " Faith being the appointed re-
presentative of Baptism, derives its authority and virtue from that
which it represents. It is justifying because of Baptism ; it is
the faith of the baptized, of the regenerate, that is, of the justified.
Justifying faith does not precede justification; but justification
precedes faith, and makes it justifying. And here lies the car-
dinal mistake of the views on the subject which are now in esteem
(evangelical). They make faith the sole instrument, not after
Baptism, but before ; whereas Baptism is the primary instrument,
and makes faith to be what it is, and otherwise is not.":|: He
admits, indeed, what could not well be denied, that, in some sense,
faith exists before baptism, — i.e.., of course, in adults; but he
denies that faith has then — or until after baptism makes it, as

* Newman, Lectures on Justification, I f Ibid. p. 345.

pp. 316, 317. I t Ibid. p. 257.

124 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

he says, justifying — any influence whatever upon justification.
This was certainly raising the efficacy of the sacraments at least
as high as the Council of Trent did ; while it also exhibited, in
addition to its heresy, a depth of folly and absurdity, and a
daring opposition to the plain teaching of Scripture, which the
Council of Trent had usually the sense and the decency to avoid.
The essential idea of this Popish and Tractarian doctrine of
the sacraments is this : that God has established an invariable
connection between these external ordinances, and the communi-
cation of Himself, — the possession by men of spiritual blessings,
pardon, and holiness ; with this further notion, which naturally
results from it, that He has endowed these outward ordinances
with some sort of power or capacity of conveying or conferring
the blessings with which they are respectively connected. It is
a necessary result of this principle, that the want of the outward
ordinance — not the neglect or contempt of it, but the mere want
of it, from whatever cause arising — deprives men of the spiritual
blessings which it is said to confer. The Church of Rome has
found it necessary or politic to make some little exceptions to
this practical conclusion ; but this is the great general principle
to which her whole system of doctrine upon the subject leads,
and which ordinarily she does not hesitate to apply. The Pro-
testant doctrine, upon the other hand, is, that the only thing on
which the possession by men individually of spiritual blessings
— of justification and sanctification — is made necessarily and in-
variably dependent, is union to Christ ; and that the only thing
on which union to Christ may be said to be dependent, is faith
in Him : so that it holds true, absolutely and universally, that
wherever there is faith in Christ, or union to Christ by faith, there
pardon and holiness — all necessary spiritual blessings — are com-
municated by God and received by men, even though they have
not actually partaken in any sacrament or external ordinance
whatever. If this great principle can be fully established from
Scripture, — as Protestants believe it can, — then it overturns from
the foundation the Popish and Tractarian doctrine about the office
and function of the sacraments ; while, on the other hand, if they
can establish from Scripture their doctrine of the sacraments, this
would necessitate a rejection or modification of the great Pro-
testant principle above stated. It is to be observed, however, that
even after this Protestant principle has been established from

Sec. I.] SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 125

Scripture, and after the Popish and Tractarian view of the sacra-
ments, which is inconsistent with it, has been disproved, it still
remains incumbent upon Protestants to explain what the design
and efficacy of the sacraments are, — what is the place they hold,
and what is the influence they exert, in connection with the
bestowal by God, and the reception by men, of spiritual blessings.
The general doctrine of Protestants upon this subject, though there
is some diversity in their mode of explaining it, is this, — that the
sacraments are svmbolical or exhibitive ordinances, si<2;ns and seals
of the covenant of grace, not only signifying and representing
Christ and the benefits of the new covenant, but sealing, and in
some sense applying, them to believers. They regard them, how-
ever, as mere appendages to the word or the truth, and as exerting
no influence whatever, apart from the faith which the participa-
tion in them expresses, and which must exist in each adult before
participation in them can be either warrantable or beneficial.
These are the leading topics involved in the discussion of this
subject, and this is the way in which they are connected with
each other.

There is one remark that may be of some use in explaining
the discussions which have taken place upon this point, — namely,
that when the subject of the sacraments in general — that is, of
their general nature, design, and efficacy — is under consideration,
it is usually assumed that the persons who partake of them are
possessed of the necessary preliminary qualifications ; and, more
particularly, that when statements are made upon this subject
which are applied equally to baptism and the Lord's Supper, or
when the general object and design of baptism and the Lord's
Supper are set forth in the abstract, it is adult participation only
which theologians have ordinarily in view, — the participation of
those who, after they have grown up to years of understanding,
desire to hold communion with the visible church of Christ. It
is in this aspect that baptism, as well as the Lord's Supper, is
usually, referred to, and presented to us, in the New Testament;
and it is from the case of adult participation that we ought to
form our general views and impressions of the meaning and de-
sign of these ordinances. It tends greatly to introduce obscurity
and confusion into our whole conceptions upon the subject of bap-
tism, that we see it ordinarily administered to infants, and very
seldom to adults. This leads us insensibly to form very defective

126 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

and erroneous conceptions of its design and effect, or rather to
live with our minds very much in the state of blanks, so far as
concerns any distinct and definite views upon the subject. There
is a difficulty felt — a difficulty which Scripture does not afford
us materials for altogether removing — in laying down any very
distinct and definite doctrine as to the precise bearing and efficacy
of baptism in the case of infants, to whom alone ordinarily we
see it administered. And hence it becomes practically, as well
as theoretically, important to remember that we ought to form
our primary and fundamental conceptions of baptism from the
baptism of adults, in which it must be, in every instance^ accord-
ing to the general doctrine of Protestants, eitlier the sign and seal
of a faith and regeneration previously existing^ — already effected
by God's grace, — or else a hypocritical profession of a state of
mind and feeling which has no existence. This is the original
and fundamental idea of the ordinance of baptism, as it is usually
represented to us in Scripture. And when we contemplate it
in this light, there is no more difficulty in forming a distinct
and definite conception regarding it than regarding the Lord's
Supper. We have no doubt that the lawfulness of infant bap-
tism can be conclusively established from Scripture ; but it is
manifest that the general doctrine or theory with respect to the
design and effect of baptism, as above stated, must undergo some
modification in its application to the case of infants. And the
danger to be provided against, is that of taking the baptism of
infants, with all the difficulties attaching to giving a precise and
definite statement as to its design and effect in their case, and
making this regulate our whole conceptions with respect to the
ordinance in general, — and even with respect to sacraments in
general, — instead of regarding adult baptism as affording the
proper and fundamental type of it ; deriving our general concep-
tions of it from that case, and then, since infant baptism is also
fully warranted by Scripture, examining what modifications the
leading general views of the ordinance must undergo when applied
to the special and peculiar case of the baptism of infants. The
Reformers, when discussing this subject, having adult baptism
chiefly in their view, usually speak as if they regarded baptism
and regeneration as substantially identical ; not intending to
assert or concede the Popish principle of an invariable connection
between them, as a general thesis, — for it is quite certain, and

Sec. I.] SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 127

can be most fully established, that they rejected this, — but be-
cause the Council of Trent, in treating of the general subject of
justification, discussed it chiefly in its bearing upon the case of
those who had not been baptized in infancy, and with whom,
consequently, baptism, if it was not a mere hypocritical pro-
fession, destitute of all worth or value, was, in the judgment of
Protestants, a sign and seal of a faith and a regeneration pre-
viously wrought in them, and now existing ; and because it was
when viewed in this aspect and application, that the great general
doctrine of the design and efficacy of the sacraments, in their
bearing upon the justification of sinners, stood out for examina-
tion in the clearest and most definite form. Accordingly, all
that Calvin says upon the declaration of the Council of Trent,
that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, is this :
" It is a great absurdity to make baptism alone the instrumental
cause. If it be so, what becomes of the gospel ? Will it, in
turn, get into the lowest corner? But they say baptism is the
sacrament of faith. True ; but when all is said, I will still main-
tain that it is nothing but an appendage to the Gospel {Evangelii
appendicem). They act preposterously in giving it the first place,
— that is, in preference to the gospel or the truth ; and this is
just as if a man should say that the instrumental cause of a house
is the handling of the workman's trowel (trullce manubnum). He
who, putting the gospel in the background, numbers baptism
among the causes of salvation, shows thereby that he does not
know what baptism is or means, or what is its functions or use."*
These considerations are to be applied — and indeed must be
applied — to the interpretation of the general abstract statements
about a sacrament or the sacraments, and more particularly
about baptism, which are to be found in the confessions of the
Reformed churches. They ought to be kept in view in con-
sidering the general declarations of our own Confession and
Catechisms. Sacraments are there describedf "as holy signs
and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by
God, to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our
interest in Him ; as also to put a visible difference between those
tliat belong unto the church and the rest of the world; and

♦ Tractatus, p. 389. Ed. 1576.— See The Reformers, and Theology of
the Reformation, p. 245, etc. — Edks.
t Confession, C. xxvii. s. 1.

128 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXIL

solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, accord-
ing to His word." This statement, of course, applies equally and
alike to both sacraments ; and it evidently is assumed, that those
whose interest in Christ is to be confirmed by the sacraments, are
persons who already, before they participate in either sacrament,
have an interest in Christ, and are possessed of the necessary
qualifications, whatever these may be, for the reception and im-
provement of the sacraments. This is brought out, if possible,
still more clearly in the simple statement of the Shorter Cate-
chism, that "a sacrament is an holy ordinance, instituted by
Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the
new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers;"
to believers, — a statement plainly conveying, and intended to con-
vey, the doctrine that one fundamental general position concern-
ing the sacrament is, that they are intended for believers, and
of course for believers only, unless some special exceptional case
can be made out, as we are persuaded can be done in the case of
the infants of believers. In like manner, baptism is described in
our Confession * as " a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained
by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party
baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign
and seal of the covenant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ,
of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto
God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." Now
here, first, it is to be observed, in general, that this is just an
application to the special case of baptism, — its import, object, and
design, — of the general definition previously given of the sacra-
ments, and, of course, with the assumption of the possession of
the necessary qualifications of the persons baptized ; and secondly,
and more particularly, that it applies primarily and fully only to
the case of adult baptism, where the previous existence of these
qualifications may be tested ; while it still remains a question, to
be determined after the lawfulness of infant baptism has been
established, how far this general description of baptism applies
fully to infant baptism, or how far some modification of the
general doctrine may be necessary in that special case.

It is common to adduce against the Popish and Tractarian
view of the design and efficacy of the sacraments, — against the

• C. xxviii. s. 1.

Sec. I.] SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 129

alleged invariable connection between them, and the communica-
tion and reception of spiritual blessings, — the general character
of the Christian dispensation as contrasted with the Jewish, in
that, under the gospel, external rites and ceremonies have nothing
like prominence assigned to them ; and that its whole arrange-
ments are manifestly adapted to the object of addressing directly
men's understandings and consciences, and engaging them in the
worship and service of God, — while very little provision is made
for impressing their external senses. I have no doubt that the
predominant spiritual character of the Christian dispensation
affords a very strong presumption against the Popish system, with
its seven sacraments, and its huge and burdensome load of rites
and ceremonies, contrasting, as it does, very glaringly with the
Christianity of the New Testament. But a general and indefinite
consideration of this sort is scarcely of itself sufficient to overturn
a distinct and definite position which professed to rest upon scrip-
tural evidence. Men are not able to determine, upon general
grounds, with anything like certainty, whether a particular prin-
ciple or arrangement is, or is not, inconsistent with the spiritual
character of the Christian dispensation. The Quakers, or Society
of Friends, deduce, as an inference from the spiritual character
of Christianity, that no external ordinances were intended to be
permanently administered in the Christian church, and allege
that the apostles baptized and administered the Lord's Supper
for a time merely in accommodation to Jewish weakness and
prejudice. Even if a great deal that was plausible could be said
in support of the general position, that the permanent observance
of any outward ordinances is inconsistent with the spiritual cha-
racter of the Christian dispensation, it would still be a competent
and valid answer to the Quakers, to undertake to prove from
Scripture that it was manifestly Christ's intention that the ob-
servance of Baptism and the Lord's Supper should continue per-
manently in His church. And, in like manner. Papists might
argue, that if the permanent observance of these two outward
ordinances is not inconsistent with the spiritual character of the
Christian dispensation, neither can it be easily proved that such
an inconsistency necessarily attaches to any particular view of
their office or function, or of the relation subsisting between them
and spiritual blessings.

I have made these observations chiefly for the purpose of teach-

3 — VOL. II. I

130 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

ing the general lesson, that in estimatuig the truth or falsehood
of a doctrine which professes to rest upon scriptural authority,
the best and safest course is to examine, first and chiefly, the
scriptural statements that bear most directly and immediately
upon the point under consideration, instead of resting much upon
mere inferences from views or principles of a somewhat general
and indefinite description. Now it cannot be said that we have
in Scripture any explicit statements, bearing very directly and
immediately upon the precise question of what is the design and
effect of the sacraments, and of whether or not there subsists an
invariable connection between the observance of them and the
reception of spiritual blessings. The Scriptures, indeed, contain
nothing bearing very directly upon the topics usually discussed
in systems of theology, under the head De Sacramentis in genere.
They tell us nothing directly about the general subject of sacra-
ments, as such ; but the New Testament sets before us two out-
ward ordinances, and two only, — the observance of which is of
permanent obligation in the Christian church, and which both
manifestly possess the general character of being means of grace,
or of being connected, in some way or other, with the communi-
cation and the reception of spiritual blessings. As these ordi-
nances evidently occupy a peculiar place of their own in tlie
general plan of the Christian system, and in the arrangements
of the Christian church, it is natural and reasonable to inquire
what materials there are in Scripture for adopting any general
conclusions as to their nature, design, and efficacy, that may be
equally applicable to them both ; and what is usually given as
the definition or description of a sacrament, or of the sacraments,
is just an embodiment of what can be collected or deduced from
Scripture as being equally predicable of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper. Under this general head, the question to which we have
had occasion to refer may very reasonably be broached, — namely,
Does the Scripture represent the observance of these ordinances
as necessary to the enjoyment of any spiritual blessings ? does it
contain any materials which establish an invariable connection
between the observance of them, and the reception and possession
of anything needful for men's salvation? And in considering
this question, we must first examine the scriptural materials that
seem to bear upon it most directly and immediately.

Now this brings us back to the consideration of the topics

Sec. 1.] SACEAMENTAL GRACE. 131

formerly adverted to, as those on which the settlement of this
subject depends. Protestants, as I have said, maintain that it is
a scriptural doctrine, that the only thing on which the possession
of spiritual blessings absolutely and invariably depends, is union
to Christ ; and that the only thing on which union to Christ
depends, is faith in Him. As soon as, and in every instance in
which, men are united to Christ by faith, they receive justifica-
tion and regeneration ; while without, or apart from, personal
union to Christ by faith, these blessings are never conferred or
received. Every one who is justified and regenerated, is cer-
tainly admitted into heaven whether he be baptized or not, and
whether he have performed any actual good works or not, as was
undoubtedly exhibited in the case of the thief whom the Redeemer
saved upon the cross. In saying that the possessing of spiritual
blessings, and the attaining to the everlasting enjoyment of God,
depend absolutely and universally upon union to Christ through
faith, and upon nothing else, we do not of course mean to deny
the importance and obligation either of sacraments or of good
works in their proper order and connection, and upon legitimate
scriptural grounds. It is undoubtedly the imperative duty of
every one not only to repent, but to bring forth fruits meet for
repentance, — to obey the whole law of God; and when these
fruits — this obedience — are not manifested whenever an oppor-
tunity is afforded in providence of manifesting them, this of itself
is a universally conclusive proof that the blessings of justification
and regeneration have not been bestowed, and that, of course,
men are still in their sins, subject to God's wrath and curse. In
like manner, the sacraments are of imperative obligation ; it is a
duty incumbent upon men to observe them, when the means and
opportunity of doing so are afforded them, so that it is sinful to
neglect or disregard them. But there is nothing in all this in
the least inconsistent with the position, that union to Christ by
faith infallibly and in every instance secures men's eternal wel-
fare, by conveying or imparting justification and regeneration,
even though they may not have been baptized, or have per-
formed any good works.

The Council of Trent * insinuated that the Reformers taught
that the sacraments " non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superfiua!''

* Session vii. Can. iv.

132 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

The Reformers never denied that the sacraments were necessary
in the sense that has now been explained, — that is, that they
were matters of imperative obhgation, — and they never alleged
that they were superfluous. Calvin's remark upon the canon
which we have just quoted is this : " Facile patiar, ut quae nobis
Christus dedit salutis adjumenta, eorum usus necessarius dicatur:
quando scilicet datur facultas. Quanquam semper admonendi
sunt fideles, non aliam esse cujusvis sacramenti necessitatem, quam
instrumentalis causae, cui nequaquam alliganda est Dei virtus.
Vocem sane illam nemo plus est qui non toto pectore exhorreat,
res esse superfluas." * Upon the subject of the necessity/ of the
sacraments, Protestant divines have been accustomed to employ
this distinction, and it brings out their meaning very clearly, —
viz., that they are necessary, ex necessitate prcecepti^ non ex neces-
sitate medii : necessary, ex necessitate prcecepti, because the ob-
servance of them is commanded or enjoined, and must therefore
be practised by all who have in providence an opportunity of
doing so, so that the voluntary neglect or disregard of them is
sinful ; but not necessary ex necessitate medii, or in such a sense
that the mere fact of men not having actually observed them
either produces or proves the non-possession of spiritual blessings,
either excludes men from heaven, or affords any evidence that
they will not, in point of fact, be admitted there. Regeneration
or conversion is necessary both ex necessitate prcecepti and ex neces-
sitate medii; it is necessary not merely because it is commanded
or enjoined, so that the neglect of it is sinful, but because the
result cannot, from the nature of the case, be attained without it,
— because it holds true absolutely and universally, in point of
fact, and in the case of each individual of our race, that " except
we be born again, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." f

Now the question comes virtually to this: Can a similar neces-
sity be established in regard to the sacraments ? And here comes
in the argument upon which Papists and Tractarians rest their
case. They scarcely allege that there is any evidence in Scrip-
ture bearing upon the necessity {ex necessitate medii) of the
sacraments generally, or of the two sacraments the observance of
which Protestants admit to be obligatory, singly and separately.
But they assert that, in regard to one of them, — viz., Baptism, —

* Antidot., sess. vii. in Canon iv. I f The Reformers, and Theology of

I the Reformation, p. 235. — Edrs.

Sec. II.] BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 133

they can prove from Scripture that it is invariably connected with
justification and regeneration, so that those who are not baptized
do not receive or possess these blessings, and that those who are
baptized do, universally in the case of infants, and in the case of
adults whenever men are suitably disposed and prepared to receive
them, — the preparation required not being very formidable. Now
this is a perfectly fair argument ; and though there is a very large
amount of presumption or probability from Scripture against its
truth, both in general considerations and in specific statements,
there is perhaps nothing which can at once and a priori disprove
its truth, or deprive it of a right to be examined upon its own
proper professed grounds. The establishment of the position, how-
ever, it should be observed, would not prove anything in regard to
the sacraments in general, or entitle us to put a statement, assert-
ing the invariable connection between the sacraments and grace
or spiritual blessings, into the general definition or description of
a sacrament. It would establish nothing about what is called the
sacramental principle. In order to effect this, the same general
position must be established separately and independently about
the Lord's Supper, and about any other ordinance for which the
character and designation of a sacrament are claimed ; for the
sacramental principle, rightly understood, whatever may be the
definition or description given of it, is just that, and neither more
nor less, which can he proved from Scripture to attach to, and to
be predicable of, each and all of the ordinances to which the name
sacrament may be applied. But though the general doctrine of
Papists and Tractarians about the design and effect of the sacra-
ments could not be proved merely by this process, still it would
be a great matter for them if they could establish from Scripture
the more limited position, that Baptism is the instrumental cause
of justification ; and that, according to God's arrangements,
there subsists an invariable connection between the outward ordi-
nance of baptism, and the communication and reception of for-
giveness and renovation ; and it may therefore be proper to make
a few remarks upon the evidence they adduce to this effect.

Sec. 2. — Baptismal Regeneration.

We have seen that Papists and Tractarians assert an invariable
connection between the observance of the sacraments and the pos-

134 THE SACEAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

session of spiritual blessings, and even ascribe to the sacraments
an important amount of actual influence upon the production of
the result ; maintaining that they confer grace ex opere operato,
by an intrinsic power or virtue which God has bestowed upon
them, and which operates invariably when men do not put a bar in
the way of their operation, — that is, as it is usually explained by
Romish writers, when men are free at the time of their participa-
tion in the sacrament of a present intention of committing sin.
The Tractarians, indeed, have not formally committed themselves
to the language of the Council of Trent upon the subject of the
opus operatum ; but they teach the whole substance of what is in-
tended by it, and, generally, inculcate as high views of the efficacy
of the sacraments as the Church of Rome has ever propounded, —
as is evident from the extracts already quoted from Mr. Newman,
in which he, while still a minister of the Church of England,
explicitly ascribed the whole efficacy of faith in justification to
baptism, and declared that " baptism makes faith justifying."

Protestants in general, on the contrary, regard the sacraments
as signs and seals of the covenant of grace, signifying and repre-
senting in themselves, as symbols appointed by God, Christ and
His benefits, and the scriptural truths which set them forth, and
expressing, in the participation of them by individuals, their pre-
vious reception of Christ and His benefits by faith, — operating
beneficially only in those in whom faith already exists, and pro-
ducing the beneficial effect of confirming and sealing the truths
and blessings of the gospel to the individual only through the
medium of the faith which participation in them expresses. There
is nothing like evidence in Scripture in favour of the general
doctrine of an invariable connection between participation of the
sacraments and the reception of spiritual blessings ; and indeed,
as I have explained, there is nothing said in Scripture directly
about sacraments in general, or about a sacrament as such. The
only plausible evidence which Papists and Tractarians have to
produce upon this point, is to be found in those passages which
seem to establish an invariable connection between baptism on
the one hand, and regeneration and salvation on the other. I
cannot enter upon a detailed examination of these passages; but a
few general observations will be sufficient to indicate the leading
grounds on which Protestants have maintained that they do not
warrant the conclusions which Romanists and Tractarians have

Sec. II.] BAPTISMAL REGENEKATION. 135

deduced from them ; and that, on the contraiy, to adopt the
language of our Confession,* " grace and salvation are not so
inseparably annexed unto " baptism, " as that no person can be
regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are
undoubtedly regenerated."

We remark, first, that, in opposition to the Popish and Trac-
tarian view of an invariable connection between baptism and
regeneration, and in support of the doctrine just quoted from
our Confession of Faith, there is a large amount of scriptural
evidence, both in general principles and in specific statements,
which, though it may not amount to strict and conclusive proof,
so as to entitle us to reject as incompetent any attempt to rebut
the conclusion to which it points by an offer of direct scriptural
evidence on the other side, is yet quite sufficient to require us to
maintain this conclusion as a part of God's revealed truth, unless
it be disproved by very clear, direct, and cogent scriptural proofs,
and to authorize us to direct our attention, in considering the
proofs that may be adduced upon the other side, to this special
point, — viz., to show that they do not necessarily require the con-
struction put upon them, and to reckon it quite sufficient for the
establishment of our doctrine when we can show this.f

We remark, in the second place, that the sacraments' have
manifestly, and by universal admission, a symbolical character, —
that they are signs or representations of something signified or
represented. And if this be so, then there is an obvious founda-
tion laid, in accordance with the practice of all languages and the
usage of the sacred writers, for a sort of interchange between the
terms properly applicable to the sign, and those properly appli-
cable to the thing signified, — for a certain promiscuous use of the
expressions applicable to these two things. Our Confession of
Faith \ lays down this position : " There is in every sacrament a
spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the
thing signified ; whence it comes to pass, that the names and
effects of the one are attributed to the other ;" and as this general
position can be established, partly a priori from general views
about the nature and objects of the sacraments which are ad-

* C. xxviii. s. V. I tine, Loc. xix, Qu. viii. De eflBcacia

1 1 cannot enter upon the proof of Sacramentorum.
this important general position. There % C. xxvii. s. ii.
is a masterly summary of it in Turre- I

136 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXIT.

mitted by all parties, and partly by general considerations of a
philological kind, which cannot reasonably be disputed, we are
entitled to apply it to the interpretation of the scriptural passages
in which baptism may be spoken of, or referred to, as if it were
virtually identical with the faith or regeneration which it signifies
or represents.

We remark, in the third place, that participation in the ordi-
nance of baptism is an imperative duty incumbent upon all who
are enabled to believe in Christ and to turn to God through Him,
which it is assumed that they will at once proceed, if they have
an opportunity in providence, to discharge, not merely as a duty
required by God's authority, but also as a suitable expression and
appropriate evidence of the change that has been wrought in their
views and principles ; and, moreover, that the New Testament, in
its general references to this subject, having respect principally
and primarily, as I have explained, to the case of adult baptism,
usually assumes that the profession made in baptism corresponds
with the reality of the case, — that is, with the previous existence
of faith and union to Christ, and deals with it upon this assump-
tion. All these general considerations, when brought to bear upon
the interpretation of the passages usually produced by Papists
and Tractarians in support of their doctrine upon this subject,
afford abundant materials for enabling us to prove that these
passages do not require^ and therefore upon principles already ex-
plained, do not admit, of a construction which would make them
sanction the notion that there is an invariable connection between
baptism and regeneration, or even — what, however, is only a part
of the general doctrine of an invariable connection — that none
are regenerated or saved without baptism.

Some of the passages commonly adduced in support of the
Popish and Tractarian doctrine upon this subject, contain, in
gremio, statements which not only disprove their interpretation of
the particular passage, but afford a key to the explanation of other
passages of a similar kind. It is said, for instance,* — "the like
figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God)." Now here, indeed, as in one or two
other passages, baptism is said to save us ; but then a formal

* 1 Pet. iii. 2L

Sec. II.] BAPTISMAL KEGENERATION. 137

explanation is given of what this statement means ; and it just
amounts in substance to this, that it is not the outward ordinance
of baptism, or anything which an outward ordinance is either
fitted or intended to effect, to which this result is to be ascribed,
but the reality of that of which baptism is the figure — the
sincerity of the profession which men make when they ask and
receive the ordinance of baptism for themselves.

The only passage of those usually quoted by Papists and
Tractarians in support of their doctrine of baptismal regenera-
tion, which seems to bear with anything like explicitness upon
the conclusion they are anxious to establish, is the declaration of
our Saviour,* " Except a man be born again of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Protestants
have usually contended that our Lord did not here speak of bap-
tism at all, any more than He spoke of the Lord's Supper in the
discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of the same Gospel ; and
they have no great difficulty in proving tlds much at least, which
is all that the condition of the argument requires of them, —
namely, that it cannot he proved that the water of which our Lord
here speaks was intended by Him to describe the outward ordi-
nance of baptism.

There is one of the passages commonly adduced by Papists
and Tractarians, which, while it gives no real countenance to their
doctrine, affords a very clear indication of the true state of the
case in regard to this matter, and of what it is that Scripture
really meant to convey to us concerning it. It is the record of the
commission given by our Lord to His apostles after His resurrec-
tion, as contained in the sixteenth verse of the sixteenth chapter
of Mark's Gospel, where we find that, after directing them to go
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, our
Saviour added, ''He that believeth and is baptized, shall be
saved ; " (here Papists and Tractarians commonly stop in quoting
the passage, but our Lord goes on), " he that believeth not, shall
be damned." None can fail to be struck with the very remark-
able contrast between the two different portions of this declaration,
— the manifestly intentional, and very pointed, omission of any
reference to baptism in the second part of it. Had the first part
of it stood alone, it might have seemed to countenance the idea

* John iii. 5.

138 THE SACRAMENTAL PEINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

that baptism was just as necessary to salvation, and as invariable
an accompaniment of it, as faith, although even in that case a more
direct and explicit statement would have been necessary to make
it a conclusive proof of this position. Had it been followed up
by the declaration, " He that believeth not, and is not baptized,
shall be damned," the Popish doctrine might have been regarded
as established. But when we find that our Saviour, in so very
marked and pointed a manner, dropped all reference to baptism in
stating the converse of His first declaration, and connected con-
demnation only w^th the want of faith, the conviction is forced
upon us, that He did so for the express purpose of indicating that
He did not intend to teach that there was an invariable connec-
tion between salvation and baptism, though there certainly was
between salvation and faith ; and that He was careful to say
nothing that might lead men to believe that the want of bap-
tism excluded from the kingdom of heaven. The combination of
baptism with faith, in the first part of the declaration, is easily
explained by those general considerations which were formerly
stated, and which warrant us in saying that, even had it stood
alone, it would not have necessarily implied more than what all
Protestants admit, — namely, that it was our Lord's intention that
baptism should be set forth by His apostles as not less really
obligatory with faith as a matter of duty, and was therefore
usually to be expected in all who were enabled to believe as the
certain consequence in all ordinary circumstances, — the appro-
priate and incumbent expression of their faith.*

If there be nothing in Scripture adequate to establish the doc-
trine of an invariable connection between baptism and the spiritual
blessings of forgiveness and regeneration, — but, on the contrary,
much to disprove it, — it is still more clear and certain that the
Popish doctrine, that the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato,
is destitute of any authority, and ought to be decidedly rejected.
Even if the doctrine of an invariable connection between the
sacraments and spiritual blessings could be established, as we have
shown it cannot, it would still require additional and independent
scriptural evidence to show that the sacraments confer grace ex
opere operato ; while, on the other hand, the refutation of the
doctrine of an invariable connection overturns at once that of the

* See an able discussion of this subject in Turretinc, Loc. xix. Qu. xiii.

Sec. II.] BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 139

opus operatum, and removes the only ground on which any attempt
to prove it could be based. It should also be observed that this
doctrine with respect to the efficacy of the sacraments is much
more directly and explicitly inconsistent with great scriptural
truths, as to the principles that regulate the communication of
spiritual blessings to men, than that merely of an invariable con-
nection,— as is evident from this consideration, that this doctrine of
the opus operatum ascribes to outward ordinances an influence and
an efficacy in procuring forgiveness which the Scripture does not
ascribe even to faith itself, — the only thing existing in men, or done
by them, by which they are ever said in Scripture to be justified.
Baptism, according to the Church of Eome, is the instrumental
cause of justification, while faith is merely one of seven virtues, as
they are called, which only prepare or dispose men to receive it ;
and a mere wish to receive the sacraments is represented as one of
those six other virtues, each of which has just as much influence or
efficacy as faith in procuring or obtaining justification, — the sacra-
ment itself, of course upon the principle of the opus operatum,
having more influence or efficacy in producing the result than all
these virtues put together ; while, on the other hand, the Protes-
tant doctrine, though assigning to faith, in the matter of justifica-
tion, a function and an influence possessed and exerted by nothing
else, does not ascribe to it any proper efficiency of its own in the
production of the result, but represents it only as the instrument
receiving what has been provided and is offered.

The subject of the sacraments forms a most important de-
partment in the system of Romanists. Their wdiole doctrine
upon the sacraments in general, — their nature, objects, efficacy,
and number, — their peculiar doctrines and practices in regard to
each of their seven sacraments individually, — all tend most power-
fully to corrupt and pervert the doctrine of Scripture with respect
to the grounds of a sinner's salvation, and the way and manner in
which God communicates to men spiritual blessings, as well as to
foster and confirm some natural tendencies of the human heart,
which are most dangerous to men's spiritual welfare. The effects
which they ascribe to the sacraments in general and individually,
— the five spurious sacraments they have invented without any
warrant from Scripture, — and the load of ceremonies with which
they have clothed those simple, unpretending ordinances which
Christ appointed, — all tend most powerfully to promote the two

140 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

great objects which the Romish system is fitted to advance, —
namely, first, to lead men to reject the gospel method of salvation,
and to follow out for themselves a plan of procedure opposed to
its fundamental principles ; and, secondly, to make men, in so
far as they sincerely submit to the authority and receive the doc-
trines of their church, the abject slaves of the priest, by repre-
senting them as dependent, for the possession of spiritual blessings,
upon acts which the priest alone can perform, and by ascribing to
these acts of his an important influence in procuring for them
the spiritual blessings they need. Some Komish writers have
indulged their imaginations in drawing fanciful analogies from a
variety of sources in support of these seven sacraments ; while
others have produced glowing eulogies upon the bountiful kind-
ness and liberality of holy mother church in providing so many
sacraments and so many ceremonies to supply all their spiritual
wants, and to afford them spiritual assistance and comfort in all
varieties of circumstances, upon all leading emergencies from their
birth till their death, — baptism when they come into the world to
take away all original sin, both its guilt and its power, — confirma-
tion to strengthen and uphold them in the right path when they
are growing up towards manhood, — penance and the eucharist
during all their lives whenever they need them, the one to wash
away all their sins, and the other to afford them spiritual nourish-
ment,— and their extreme unction when they draw near to death.*
The leading aspect in which these ordinances, as represented
and practised in the Church of Eome, ought to be regarded, is in
relation to the scriptural authority on which their observance and
obligation, and the effects ascribed to them either expressly or by
implication, rest, and the bearing of the doctrines and practices
of the Church of Rome upon these points, — on men's mode of
thinking, feeling, and acting with reference to the only way of a
sinner's salvation revealed in the word of God ; and the conclu-
sion to which we come when we contemplate the Popish doctrines
and practices in this aspect is, that they are wholly unsanctioned
by, nay, decidedly opposed to, the word of God, and unspeakably
dangerous to men's eternal welfare, — as having the most direct
and powerful tendency to lead men to trust, in matters which

* Bellarmin. de Sacramentis in genere, lib. ii. c. xxvi. Moehler's Syvibolism,
vol. i. p. 297.

Sec. II.] BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 141

concern their everlasting peace, to their fellow-men and to exter-
nal observances, instead of trusting to the person and the work of
Christ as the only ground of their hope, and looking to the state
of their hearts and motives as the only satisfactory evidence that
they are in a condition of safety. But it is impossible not to be
struck also with the great skill and ingenuity with which all these
observances and inventions are adapted to increase and strengthen
the control of the church and the priesthood over the minds and
consciences of men. Sacraments are provided for all the leading
eras or stages in men's lives, and such representations are given
of their nature and effects, as are best fitted to impress men with
the deepest sense of the obligation and advantages of partaking
in them. This tendency is brought out with increasing clearness
when we advert to the two other sacraments which the Church
of Eome has invented, — viz., holy orders and marriage : the first
manifestly intended — that is, so far as the ascription of a sacra-
mental character is concerned — to increase the respect and vene-
ration entertained for the priesthood ; and the second being just
as manifestly intended to bring under the more direct and abso-
lute control of the priesthood, a relation which exerts, directly
and indirectly, so extensive and powerful an influence upon men
individually, and upon society at large. If Popery be Satan's
masterpiece, the theory and practice of the sacraments may per-
haps be regarded as the most finished and perfect department in
this great work of his. And it is not in the least surprising, that
when recently the great adversary set himself to check and over-
turn the scriptural and evangelical principles which were gaining
a considerable influence in the Church of England, he should
have chiefly made use of the sacramental principle for effecting
his design, — that is, the principle that therq is an invariable con-
nection between participation in the sacraments and the enjoyment
of spiritual blessings, and that the sacraments have an inherent
power or virtue whereby they produce these appropriate effects.
In no other way, and by no other process, could he have succeeded
to such an extent as he has done, in leading men to disregard and
despise all that Scripture teaches us concerning our helpless and
ruined condition by nature ; concerning the necessity of a regene-
ration of our moral nature by the power of the Holy Spirit ;
concerning the way and manner in which, according to the divine
method of justification, pardon and acceptance have been pro-

142 THE SACEAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

cured and are bestowed ; concerning the place and function of
faith in the salvation of sinners ; and concerning the true elements
and distinguishing characteristics of all those things that accom-
pany salvation, — and, finally, in no other way could he have suc-
ceeded to such an extent in leading men who had been ministers
in a Protestant church to submit openly and unreservedly to that
system of doctrine and practice which is immeasurably better
fitted than any other to accomplish his purposes, by leading men
to build wholly upon a false foundation, and to reject the counsel
of God against themselves ; while it is better fitted than any other
to retain men in the most degrading, and, humanly speaking, the
most hopeless bondage.

Sec. 3. — Popish View of the Lord's Supper.

It is proper, before leaving this subject, to advert to the
special importance of the place which the Lord's Supper — or the
sacrament of the altar, as Romanists commonly call it — holds in
the Popish system, and the peculiar magnitude of the corruptions
which they have introduced into it. This forms the very heart
and marrow of the Popish system, and brings out summarily and
compendiously all the leading features by which it is characterized.
In a general survey of the doctrine and practice of the Church
of Rome upon this subject, we meet first with the monstrous
doctrine of transubstantiation, which requires us to believe that,
by the words of consecration pronounced by the priest, the bread
and wine are changed, as to their substance, into the real flesh
and blood of Christ, — the bread and wine altogether ceasing to
exist, except in appearance only, and these being given to the
partaker instead of the actual flesh and blood of the Redeemer.
This doctrine not only contradicts the senses and the reason, but
it cannot possibly be received until both the senses and the reason
have been put entirely in abeyance. The imposition of the belief
of this doctrine may not unjustly be regarded as a sort of experi-
mental test of how far it is possible for the human intellect to
be degraded by submitting to receive what contradicts the first
principles of rational belief, and overturns the certainty of all
knowledge. The manifest tendency of the inculcation of such a
doctrine is to sink the human intellect into thorough and absolute
slavery, or, by a natural reaction, to involve it in universal and

Sec. III.] POPISH VIEW OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 143

hopeless scepticism. Both these ruinous results have been fully
developed in the history of the Church of Rome. There this
doctrine of transubstantiation is made the basis of the foundation
of some deadly corruptions of the fundamental principles of Chris-
tian truth, and of some gross practical frauds and abuses. It is
the foundation of the adoration of the host, or the paying of divine
worship to the consecrated wafer, — a practice which, on scriptural
principles, is not saved from the guilt of idolatry by the mistaken
belief that it is the real flesh of Christ. It is the foundation also
of the doctrine and practice of the sacrifice of the mass, — that is,
of the offering up by the priest of the flesh and blood of Christ,
or of the bread and wine alleged to be transubstantiated into
Christ's flesh and blood, as a proper propitiatory sacrifice for the
sins of the living and the dead. The mass is the great idol of
Popery, and it presents a marvellous and most daring combina-
tion of what is false, profane, and blasphemous, — of what is dis-
honouring to Christ and injurious to men, both as pertaining to
the life that now is, and that which is to come. It dishonours
and degrades the one perfect and all-suflicient sacrifice of Christ,
by representing it as repeated, or rather caricatured, daily and
hourly by the juggling mummery of a priest. It tends directly
to lead men to build their hopes of pardon upon a false foun-
dation ; and the whole regulations and practices of the Church
of Rome in connection with it are manifestly fitted and intended
to impose upon men's credulity, and to cheat them out of their
liberty and their property. The celebration of mass for their
benefit is made a regular article of merchandise ; and, by the
device of private or solitary masses, the priests are enabled to
raise much money for masses, which of course they never perform.
These hints may be sufiicient to show that the whole subject
of the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in regard to
the Eucharist, or the sacrament of the altar, is well worthy of
being carefully investigated and thoroughly known, as presenting
an epitome of the whole system of Popery, — of the dishonour
done by it to the only true God and the only Saviour of sinners,
and of its injurious bearing both on the temporal and spiritual
welfare of men.*

* For the Protestant view of the I formers, and Theologi/of the Reforma-
sacraments in general, see The Re- \ tion, p. 231, etc. — Edrs.

144 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

Sec. 4. — Infant Baptism.

The Reformers, and the great body of Protestant divines, in
putting forth the definition of the sacraments in general, or of a
sacrament as such, intended to embody the substance of what
they believe Scripture to teach, or to indicate, as equally appli-
cable to both sacraments ; and in laying down what they believe
concerning the general objects and the ordinary effects of the
sacraments, they commonly assume that the persons partaking in
them are rightly qualified for receiving and improving them, —
and further, and more specially, that the persons baptized are
adults. It is necessary to keep these considerations in view in
interpreting the general description given of sacraments and of
baptism, in our Confession of Faith and the other Reformed
confessions ; and with these assumptions, and to this extent, there
is no difficulty in the way of our maintaining the general prin-
ciple, which can be established by most satisfactory evidence, —
namely, that the fundamental spiritual blessings, on the posses-
sion of which the salvation of men universally depends, — justi-
fication and regeneration by faith, — are not conveyed through
the instrumentality of the sacraments, but that, on the contrary,
they must already exist before even baptism can be lawfully or
safely received. The general tenor of Scripture language upon
the subject of baptism applies primarily and directly to the
baptism of adults, and proceeds upon the assumption that the
profession implied in the reception of baptism by adults — the
profession, that is, that they had already been led to believe in
Christ, and to receive Him as their Saviour and their Master —
was sincere, or corresponded with the real state of their minds
and hearts. It is necessary, therefore, to form our primary and
fundamental conceptions of the objects and effects of baptism in
itself, as a distinct subject, and in its bearing upon the general
doctrine of the sacraments, from the baptism of adults, and not
of infants. The baptisms which are ordinarily described or re-
ferred to in the New Testament were the baptisms of men who
had lived as Jews and heathens, and who, having been led to
believe in Christ, — or, at least, to profess faith in Him, — expressed
and sealed this faith, or the profession of it, by complying with
Christ's requirement, that they should be baptized. This is the
proper, primary, full idea of baptism ; and to this the general

Sec. IV.] INFANT BAPTISM. 145

tenor of Scripture language upon the subject, and the general
description of tlie objects and ends of baptism, as given in our
Confession of Faith, and in the other confessions of the Keformed
churches, are manifestly adapted.

As, in the condition in which we are placed in providence,
we but seldom witness the baptism of adults, and commonly see
only the baptism of infants, — and as there are undoubtedly some
difficulties in the way of applying fully to the baptism of infants
the definition usually given of a sacrament, and the general ac-
count commonly set forth of the objects and ends of baptism, —
we are very apt to be led to form insensibly very erroneous and
defective views of the nature and effects of baptism, as an ordi-
nance instituted by Christ in His church, or rather, to rest con-
tented with scarcely any distinct or definite conception upon the
subject. Men usually have much more clear and distinct appre-
hensions of the import, design, and effects of the Lord's Supper
than of baptism ; and yet the general definition commonly given
of a sacrament applies equally to both, being just intended to
embody the substance of what Scripture indicates as equally
applicable to the one ordinance as to the other. If we were in
the habit of witnessing adult baptism, and if we formed our
primary and full conceptions of the import and effects of the
ordinance from the baptism of adults, the one sacrament would
be as easily understood, and as definitely apprehended, as the
other ; and we would have no difficulty in seeing how the general
definition given of the sacraments in our Confession of Faith and
Catechisms applied equally to both. But as this general defini-
tion of sacraments, and the corresponding general description
given of the objects and effects of baptism, do not apply fully and
without some modification to the form in which we usually see
baptism administered, men commonly, instead of considering dis-
tinctly what are the necessary modifications of it, and what are
the grounds on which these modifications rest, leave the whole
subject in a very obscure and confused condition in their minds.

These statements may, at first view, appear to be large conces-
sions to the anti-pgedo-baptists, or those who oppose the lawfulness
of the baptism of infants, and to affect the solidity of the grounds
on which the practice of pgedo-baptism, which has ever prevailed
almost universally in the church of Christ, is based. But I am
persuaded that a more careful consideration of the subject will
3 — VOL. II. K

146 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

show that these views, besides being clearly sanctioned by Scrip-
ture, and absolutely necessary for the consistent and intelligible
interpretation of our own standards, are, in their legitimate appli-
cation, fitted to deprive the arguments of the anti-psedo-baptists of
whatever plausibility they possess. It cannot be reasonably denied
that they have much that is plausible to allege in opposition to
infant baptism ; but I am persuaded that the plausibility of their
arguments will always appear greatest to men who have not been
accustomed to distinguish between the primary and complete
idea of this ordinance, as exhibited in the baptism of adults, and
the distinct and peculiar place which is held by the special sub-
ject of infant baptism, and the precise grounds on which it rests.
Psedo-baptists, from the causes to which I have referred, are apt
to rest contented with very obscure and defective notions of the
import and objects of baptism, and to confound adult and infant
baptism as if the same principles must fully and universally apply
to both. And in this state of things, when those views of the
sacraments in general, and of baptism in particular, which I have
briefly explained, are pressed upon their attention, and seen and
acknowledged to be well founded, they are not unlikely to imagine
that these principles equally rule the case of infant baptism ; and
they are thus prepared to see, in the arguments of the anti-pasdo-
baptists, a much larger amount of force and solidity than they
really possess. Hence the importance of being familiar with
what should be admitted or conceded, as clearly sanctioned by
Scripture, with respect to baptism in general, in its primary,
complete idea, — estimating exactly what this implies, and how
far it goes ; and then, moreover, being well acquainted with the
special subject of infant baptism as a distinct topic, — with the
peculiar considerations applicable to it, and the precise grounds
on which its lawfulness and obligation can be established.

It is not my purpose to enter upon a full discussion of infant
baptism, or an exposition of the grounds on which the views of
psedo-baptists can, as I believe, be successfully established and
vindicated. I shall merely make a few observations on what it
is that psedo-baptists really maintain, — on the distinct and peculiar
place which the doctrine of infant baptism truly occupies, — and
on the relation in which it stands to the general subject of bap-
tism and the sacraments ; believing that correct apprehensions
upon these points are well fitted to illustrate the grounds on which

Sec. IV.] INFANT BAPTISM. 147

infant baptism rests in all their strength, and the insufficiency of
the reasons by which the opposite view has been supported.

Let me then, in the first place, remark that intelligent pgsdo-
baptists hold all those views of the sacraments and of baptism
which I have endeavoured to explain, and are persuaded that they
can hold them in perfect consistency with maintaining that the
infants of believing parents ought to be baptized. There is nothing
in these views peculiar to the anti-paedo-baptists ; and there is, we
are persuaded, no real advantage which they can derive from them
in support of their opinions. These views are clearly sanctioned
by our Confession of Faith ; while, at the same time, it contains
also the following proposition as a part of what the word of God
teaches upon the subject of baptism : * " Not only those that do
actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the
infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." Now
let it be observed that this position is all that is essential to the
doctrine of the psedo-baptists, as such. We are called upon to
maintain nothing more upon the subject than this plain and simple
proposition, which merely asserts the lawfulness and propriety of
baptizing the infants of believing parents. Let it be noticed
also, that the statement is introduced merely as an adjunct or
appendage to the general doctrine of baptism ; not as directly and
immediately comprehended under it, any more than under the
general definition given of a sacrament, but as a special addition
to it, resting upon its own distinct and peculiar grounds. Tliis
is the true place which infant baptism occupies ; this is the view
that ought to be taken of it ; and I am persuaded that it is when
contemplated and investigated in this aspect, that there comes out
most distinctly and palpably the sufficiency of the arguments in
favour of it, and the sufficiency of the objections against it. On
this, as on many other subjects, the friends of truth have often
injured their cause, by entering too fully and minutely into ex-
planations of their doctrines, for the purpose of commending
them to men's acceptance, and solving the difficulties by which
they seemed to be beset. They have thus involved themselves in
great difficulties, by trying to defend their own minute and un-
warranted explanations, as if they were an essential part of the
Scripture doctrine. It is easy enough to prove from Scripture

* C. xxviii. s. iv.

148 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXIL

that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy
Ghost is God, and that they are not three Gods, but one God ;
but many of the more detailed explanations of the doctrine of
the Trinity which have been given by its friends, have been un-
tenable and indefensible, and have only laid it open unnecessarily
to the attacks of its enemies. In like manner, we think it no
difficult miatter to produce from Scripture sufficient and satisfac-
tory evidence of the position, that the infants of believing parents
are to be baptized ; but minute and detailed expositions of the
reasons and the effects of infant baptism are unwarranted by
Scripture : they impose an unnecessary burden upon the friends
of truth, and tend only to give an advantage to its opponents.
The condition and fate of infants, and the principles by which
they are determined, have always been subjects on which men,
not unnaturally, have been prone to speculate, but on which
Scripture has given us little explicit information beyond this,
that salvation through Christ is just as accessible to them as to
adults. One form in which this tendency to speculate unwar-
rantably about infants has been exhibited, is that of inventing
theories about the objects and effects of infant baptism. These
theories are often made to rest as a burden upon the scriptural
proof of the lawfulness and propriety of the mere practice itself ;
and thus have the appearance of communicating to that proof,
which is amply sufficient for its own proper object, their own
essential weakness and invalidity.

It is manifest that, from the nature of the case, the principles
that determine and indicate the objects and effects of baptism in
adults and infants, cannot be altogether the same ; and the great
difficulty of the whole subject lies in settling, as far as we can,
what modifications our conceptions of baptism should undergo
in the case of infants, as distinguished from that of adults ; and,
at the same time, to show that, even with these modifications, the
essential and fundamental ideas involved in the general doctrine
ordinarily professed concerning baptism are still preserved. The
investigation even of this point is perhaps going beyond the line
of what is strictly necessary for the establishment of the position,
that the infants of believing parents are to be baptized. But
some notice of it can scarcely be avoided in the discussion of the
question.

The scriptural evidence in support of the position that the

Sec. IV.] INFANT BAPTISM. 149

infants of believing parents are to be baptized, consists chiejly in
the proof which the word of God affords, to the following effect :
— that, in the whole history of our race, God's covenanted deal-
ings with His people, with respect to spiritual blessings, have had
regard to their children as well as to themselves ; so that the
children as well as the parents have been admitted to the spiritual
blessings of God's covenants, and to the outward signs and seals
of these covenants ; — that there is no evidence that this general
principle, so full of mercy and grace, and so well fitted to nourish
faith and hope, was to be departed from, or laid aside, under the
Christian dispensation ; but, on the contrary, a great deal to con-
firm the conviction that it was to continue to be acted on ; — that
the children of believers are capable of receiving, and often do
in fact receive, the blessings of the covenant, justification and
regeneration ; and are therefore — unless there be some very ex-
press prohibition, either by general principle or specific statement
— admissible and entitled to the outward sign and seal of these
blessings ; — that there is a federal holiness, as distinguished froni
a personal holiness, attaching, under the Christian as well as the
Jewish economy, to the children of believing parents, which
affords a sufficient ground for their admission, by an outward
ordinance, into the fellowship of the church ; — and that the com-
mission which our Saviour gave to His apostles, and the history
we have of the way in which they exercised this commission, de-
cidedly favour the conclusion, that they admitted the children of
believers along with their parents, and because of their relation
to their parents, into the communion of the church by baptism.

This line of argument, though in some measure inferential,
is, we are persuaded, amply sufficient in cumulo to establish the
conclusion, that the children of believing parents are to be bap-
tized, unless either the leading positions of which it consists can
be satisfactorily proved to have no sanction from Scripture, or
some general position can be established which proves the incom-
patibility of infant baptism, either with the character of the
Christian dispensation in general, or with the qualities and pro-
perties of the ordinance of baptism in particular. I do not mean
to enter upon the consideration of the specific scriptural evidence
in support of the different positions that constitute the proof of
the lawfulness and propriety of baptizing the children of believ-
ing parents, or of the attempts which have been made to disprove

150 TPIE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

them singly, and in detail. I can only advert to the general
allegation, that infant baptism is inconsistent with some of the
qualities or properties of the ordinance of baptism, as it is set
before us in Scripture.

It is manifestly nothing to the purpose to say, in support of
this general allegation, that baptism in the case of infants cannot
be, in all respects, the same as baptism in the case of adults ; or,
that we cannot give so full and specific an account of the objects
and effects of infant as of adult baptism. These positions are
certainly both true ; but they manifestly concern merely incidental
points, not affecting the root of the matter, and afford no ground
for any such conclusion as the unlawfulness of infant baptism.
In the case of the baptism of adults, we can speak clearly and
decidedly as to the general objects and the ordinary effects of
the administration of the ordinance. The adult receiving bap-
tism is either duly qualified and suitably prepared for it, or he is
not. If he is not duly qualified, his baptism is a hypocritical
profession of a state of mind and heart that does not exist ; and
of course it can do him no good, but must be a sin, and, as such,
must expose him to the divine displeasure. If he is duly quali-
fied and suitably prepared, then his baptism, though it does not
convey to him justification and regeneration, which he must have
before received through faith, impresses upon his mind, through
God's blessing, their true nature and grounds, and strengthens
his faith to realize more fully his own actual condition, as an
unworthy recipient of unspeakable mercies, and his obligations to
live to God's praise and glory. We are unable to put any such
clear and explicit alternative in the case of the baptism of infants,
or give any very definite account of the way and manner in
which it bears upon or affects them individually. Men have
often striven hard in their speculations to lay down something
precise and definite, in the way of general principle or standard,
as to the bearing and effect of baptism in relation to the great
blessings of justification and regeneration in the case of infants in-
dividually. But the Scripture really affords no adequate materials
for doing this ; for we have no sufficient warrant for asserting,
even in regard to infants, to whom it is God's purpose to give at
some time justification and regeneration, that He uniformly or
ordinarily gives it to them before or at their baptism. The dis-
comfort of this state of uncertainty, the difficulty of laying down

Sec. IV.] INFANT BAPTISM. 151

any definite doctrine upon this subject, has often led men to adopt
one or other of two opposite extremes, which have the appearance
of greater simphcity and definiteness, — that is, either to deny the
lawf uhiess of infant baptism altogether, or to embrace the doctrine
of baptismal justification and regeneration, and to represent all
baptized infants, or at least all the baptized infants of believing
parents, as receiving these great blessings in and with the external
ordinances, or as certainly and infallibly to receive them at some
future time. But this is manifestly unreasonable. " True for-
titude of understanding," according to the admirable and well-
known saying of Paley, " consists in not suffering what we do
know, to be disturbed by what we do not know." And assuredly,
if there be sufficient scriptural grounds for thinking that the
infants of believing parents are to be baptized, it can be no ade-
quate ground for rejecting, or even doubting, the truth of this
doctrine, that we have no sufficient materials for laying down any
precise or definite proposition of a general kind as to the effect of
baptism in the case of infants individually.

But the leading allegation of the anti-pasdo-baptists on this
department of the subject is, that it is inconsistent with the
nature of baptism, as set before us in Scripture, that it should be
administered to any, except upon the ground of a previous pos-
session of faith by the person receiving it. If this proposition
could be established, it would of course preclude the baptism of
infants who have not faith, and who could not profess it if they
had it. We are persuaded that this proposition cannot be estab-
lished, though we admit that a good deal which is plausible can
be adduced from Scripture in support of it. It is admitted that
all persons who are in a condition to possess and to profess faith,
must possess and profess it before they can lawfully or safely
receive the ordinance of baptism. This can be easily established
from Scripture. It is admitted, also, that the ordinary tenor of
Scripture language concerning baptism has respect, primarily and
principally, to persons in this condition, — that is, to adults, — and
that thus a profession of faith is ordinarily associated with the
Scripture notices of the administration of baptism ; so that, as
has been explained, we are to regard baptism upon a profession
of faith, as exhibiting the proper type and full development of
the ordinance. Had we no other information bearing upon the
subject in Scripture than what has now been referred to, this

152 THE SACKAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXIT.

might be fairly enough regarded as precluding the baptism of
infants ; but in the absence of anything which, directly or by
implication, teaches that this previous profession of faith is of the
essence of the ordinance, and universally necessary to its legiti-
mate administration and reception, an inference of this sort is not
sufficient to neutralize the direct and positive evidence we have
in Scripture in favour of the baptism of infants. The only thing
which seems to be really of the essence of the ordinance in this
respect is, that the parties receiving it are capable of possessing,
and have a federal interest in, the promise of the spiritual blessings
which it was intended to signify and to seal. Now the blessings
which baptism was intended to signify and seal are justification
and regeneration, — that is, the washing away of guilt, and the
washing away of depravity. These, and these alone^ are the
spiritual blessings which the washing with water in the name of
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, directly signifies
and represents. Faith does not stand in the same relation to
baptism as these blessings do ; and for this obvious and conclusive
reason, that it is not directly and expressly signified or repre-
sented in the external ordinance itself, as they are.

Faith is, indeed, ordinarily, and in the case of all who are
capable of it, the medium or instrument through which these
indispensable blessings are conveyed ; and there is certainly much
better scriptural evidence in support of the necessity of faith in
order to being saved, than in support of the necessity of a pro-
fession of faith in order to being baptized. But yet it is quite
certain that faith is not universally necessary in order to a right
to these blessings, or to the actual possession of them. It is
universally admitted that infants, though incapable of faith, are
capable of salvation, and are actually saved ; and they cannot be
saved unless they be justified and regenerated. And since it is
thus certain that infants actually receive the very blessings which
baptism signifies and represents, without the presence of the faith
wliich is necessary to the possession of these blessings in adults, —
while yet the Scripture has much more explicitly connected faith
and salvation than it has ever connected faith and baptism, —
there can be no serious difficulty in the idea of their admissibility
to the outward sign and seal of these blessings, without a previous
profession of faith.

If it be said that something more than a mere capacity of

Sec. IV.] INFANT BAPTISM. 153

receiving the blessings which baptism signifies and represents, is
necessary to warrant the administration of it, since the ordinance
is, in its general nature and character, distinguishing, and it is
not all infants that are admitted to it, — it is not difficult to show,
that not only does the admission of this general idea, as pertain-
ing to the essence of the doctrine of baptism, not preclude the
baptism of infants, but that we have in their case what is fairly
analogous to the antecedently existing ground, which is the war-
I'ant or foundation of the administration of it to adults. In the
case of adults, this antecedent ground or warrant is their own faith
professed ; and in the case of the infants of believing parents, it
is their interest in the covenant which, upon scriptural principles,
they possess simply as the children of believing parents, — the
federal holiness which can be proved to attach to them, in virtue
of God's arrangements and promises, simply upon the ground of
their having been born of parents who are themselves compre-
hended in the covenant. If this general principle can be shown
to be sanctioned by Scripture, — and we have no doubt that it can
be conclusively established, — then it affords an antecedent ground
or warrant for the admission of the children of believing parents
to the ordinance of baptism analogous to that which exists in be-
lieving adults, — a ground or warrant the relevancy and validity
of which cannot be affected by anything except a direct and con-
clusive proof of the absolute and universal necessity of a pro-
fession of faith, as the only suflScient ground or warrant, in every
instance, of the administration of baptism ; and no such proof
has been, or can be, produced.

Calvin, in discussing this point, fully admits the necessity of
some antecedent ground or warrant attaching to infants, as the
foundation of admitting them to baptism ; but he contends that
this" is to be found in the scriptural principle of the interest which
the infants of believing parents have, as such, in virtue of God's
arrangements and promises, in the covenant and its blessings.
He says, " Quo jure ad baptismum eos admittimus, nisi quod pro-
missionis sunt hseredes ? Nisi enim jam ante ad eos pertineret
vitae promissio, baptismum profanaret, quisquis illis daret." *

My chief object in these observations has been to illustrate the
importance of considering and investigating the subject of infant

* Tractatus, p. 386. Ed. 1576.

154 THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. [Chap. XXII.

baptism as a distinct topic, resting upon its own proper and
peculiar grounds, — of estimating aright its true relation to the
sacraments in general, and to baptism as a whole, — and of ap-
preciating justly the real nature and amount of the modifications
which it is necessary to introduce into the mode of stating and
defending the general doctrine as to the objects and effects of
baptism, in the case of infants as distinguished from adults ; and
I have made them, because I am persuaded that it is when the
subject is viewed in this aspect, that the strength of the argu-
ments for, and the weakness of the arguments against, infant
baptism, come out most palpably, and that by following this pro-
cess of investigation we shall be best preserved from any tempta-
tion to corrupt and lower the general doctrines of the sacraments,
— while at the same time we shall be most fully enabled to show
that infant baptism, with the difficulties which undoubtedly attach
to it, and with the obscurity in which some points connected with
it are involved, is really analogous in its essential features to the
baptism of adults, and implies nothing that is really inconsistent
with the view taught us in Scripture with respect to sacraments
and ordinances in general, or with respect to baptism in par-
ticular.

CHAPTER XXIIT.

THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY.

In the rationalistic perversion of the true principles of the Re-
formation, as to the investigation of divine truth and the interpre-
tation of Scripture, we have the foundation on which Socinianism
is based, — namely, the making human reason, or rather men's
whole natural faculties and capacities, virtually the test or stand-
ard of truth ; as if the mind of man was able fully to take in all
existences and all their relations, and as if men, on this ground,
were entitled to exclude, from what is admitted to be a revelation
from God, everything which could not be shown to be altogether
accordant with the conclusions of their own understandings, or
thoroughly comprehensible by them. In regard to this principle,
and the general views of theology, properly so called, which have
resulted from its application,^i^ is not always easy to determine
whether the application of this peculiar principium ilieologice pro-
duced the peculiar theology, or the peculiar theology, previously
adopted from some other cause, or on some other ground, led to
the maintenance of the peculiar principium, as the only way by
which the theology could be defended. If men had adopted
rationalistic principles as their rule or standard in the investiga-
tion of divine truth and the interpretation of Scripture, they
would certainly bring out, in the application of them, the Socinian
system of theology ; and, on the other hand, if, from any cause or
influence, they had already imbibed the leading elements of the
Socinian system of theology, and yet did not think it altogether
safe or expedient to deny the divine origin of the Christian re-
velation, they must, as a matter of course, be forced to adopt, as
their only means of defence, the rationalistic principle of interpre-
tation. These two things must, from the very nature of the case,
have always gone hand in hand. They could scarcely, in any

156 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap.XXIIT.

case, be separated in the order of time ; and it is of no great im-
portance to determine, in particular cases, which may have come
first in the order of nature, — ivhich was the cause, and which the
effect. Papists allege that Socinianism was one of the conse-
quences of the Reformation, — of the unrestrained and licentious
speculations upon religious matters which they ascribe to that im-
portant event. Tiie principles on which the Reformers acted, and
on which the Reformation was based, were not the causes of, and
are not responsible for, the errors and heresies which have sprung
up in the Reformed churches. At the same time, it cannot be
disputed that the Reformation tended to introduce a state of
society, and a general condition of things, which led to a fuller
and more prominent development of error, as well as of truth, by
giving freedom of thought, and freedom in the expression of
opinion. In the Church of Rome, and in countries that are fully
under its control, the maintenance of any other errors and heresies
than those which that church sanctions, is attended with immi-
nent danger, and leads to sacrifices which few men are disposed
to make, even for what they may regard as true.

This was the condition of Christendom before the Reforma-
tion. It lay wholly under the domination of a dark and relentless
despotism, the tendency and effect of which were, to prevent men
from exercising their minds freely upon religious subjects, or at
least from giving publicity to any views they might have been led
to adopt, different from those which had the civil and ecclesias-
tical authorities on their side. Wherever the Reformation pre-
vailed, this state of matters gradually changed. Despotism gave
place to liberty. Liberty was sometimes abused, and this led to
licentiousness. But it is not the less true that liberty is prefer-
able to despotism, both as being in itself a more just and righteous
condition of things, and as being attended with far greater advan-
tages, and with fewer and smaller evils.

Sec. 1. — Origin of Socinianism.

With respect to Socinianism in particular, there is much in
the history of its origin that not only disproves the Popish allega-
tion of its being traceable to the principles of the Reformation,
but which tends to throw back upon the Church of Rome a share,
at least, of the responsibility of producing this most pernicious

Sec. I.] ORIGIN OF SOCINIANISM. 157

heresy.* The founders of this sect were chiefly ItaHans, who
had been originally trained and formed under the full influence
of the Church of Rome. They may be fairly regarded as speci-
mens of the infidelity — or free-thinking, as they themselves call
it — which the Popish system, in certain circumstances, and in
minds of a certain class, has a strong tendency in the way of re-
action to produce. They were men who had come, in the exercise
of their natural reason, to see the folly and absurdity of much of
the Popish system, without having been brought under the influ-
ence of truly religious impressions, or having been led to adopt a
right method of investigating divine truth. They seem to have
been men who were full of self-confidence, proud of their own
powers of speculation and argument, and puffed up by a sense of
their own elevation above the mass of follies and absurdities which
they saw prevailing around them in the Church of Rome ; and
this natural tendency of the men, and the sinful state of mind
which it implied or produced, were the true and proper causes
of the errors and heresies into which they fell. Still it was the
Church of Rome, in which they were trained, and the influences
which it brought to bear upon them, that, in point of fact, fur-
nished the occasions of developing this tendency, and determining
the direction it took in regulating their opinions. The irrational
and offensive despotism which the Church of Rome exercised in
all matters of opinion, even on purely scientific subjects, tended
to lead men who had become, mentally at least, emancipated from
its thraldom, first and generally, to carry freedom of thought to
the extreme of licentiousness ; and then, more particularly, to
throw off the lohole system of doctrine which the Church of Rome
imposed upon men, without being at much pains to discriminate
between what was false in that system, and what might be true.
This is indeed the true history of Socinianism, — the correct ac-
count of the causes that in fact produced it.

Lselius Socinus, who is usually regarded as the true founder
of the system, — though his nephew, Faustus, was the chief de-
fender and promulgator of it, — seems to have formed his opinions
upon theological subjects before he was constrained to leave Italy,
and take refuge among the Protestants, where somewhat greater
freedom of opinion was tolerated. He did not certainly find

* Mosbeim's Church History, last section of sixteenth century.

158 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXTir

among the Reformers, with whom he came into contact, anything
to encourage him in the theological views which he had imbibed ;
but neither was he brought, by his association with them, under
any of those more wholesome influences, which would have led
him to abandon them, and to embrace the great doctrines of the
Reformation. He continued to manifest the same tendency and
the same disposition which he had exhibited in Italy ; and he
retained the theological views which, in substance, he seems to
have formed there. So that, though he published little or
nothing, and did not always very fully or openly avow his pecu-
liar opinions, even in private intercourse, yet, as there is reason
to believe that he was really and substantially the author of the
system afterwards' developed and defended by his nephew, his
history is truly the history of the origin of the system ; and that
history is at least sufficient to show that Popery is much more
deeply involved in the guilt of producing Socinianism than Pro-
testantism is.

It may be worth while, both as confirming the views now given
of the character and tendencies of Lselius Socinus, and also as
illustrating the method often adopted by such men in first broach-
ing their novel and erroneous opinions, to give one or two speci-
mens of what the Reformers with whom he came into contact
have said regarding him. He carried on for a time a correspond-
ence with Calvin ; in which, while he does not seem to have
brought out distinctly the theological views afterwards called by
his name, he had so fully manifested his strong tendency to
indulge in all sorts of useless and pernicious speculations, as at
length to draw from that great man the following noble rebuke :
" You need not expect me to reply to all the monstrous questions
(^portenta gucestionum) you propose to me. If you choose to in-
dulge in such aerial speculations, I pray you suffer me, a humble
disciple of Christ, to meditate on those things which tend to the
edification of my faith. And I indeed by my silence will effect
what I wish, — viz., that you no longer annoy me in this way. I
am greatly grieved that the fine talents which the Lord has given
you, should not only be wasted on things of no importance, but
spoiled by pernicious speculations. I must again seriously admo-
nish you, as I have done before, that unless you speedily correct
this qucBrendi pruritunij it may bring upon you much mischief. If
I were to encourage, under the appearance of indulgence, this vice,

Sec. I.]

ORIGIN OF SOCINIANISM.

159

which I beHeve to be injurious, I would be acting a perfidious and
cruel part to you; and therefore I prefer that you should now
be somewhat offended by my asperity, than that I should abstain
from attempting to draw you away from the sweet allurements
of the curiosity (or love of curious speculation) in which you are
entangled. The time, I hope, will come, when you will rejoice
that you were awakened from it, even by a rude shock." *

Zanchius, too, was an Italian, and, like Socinus, had fled from
that country, because it was not safe for him to remain there, in
consequence of the anti-Papal views which he had adopted. But
then, unlike Socinus, he was a sincere and honest inquirer after
truth. He had sought and obtained the guidance of the Spirit
of God. He had studied the Bible, with a single desire to know
what God had there revealed, that he might receive and submit
to it. And he had in this way been led to adopt the same system
of theology as Calvin and the other Reformers, and proved him-
self an able and learned defender of it. In the preface to his
work on the Trinity, or De Tribus Elohim, as he calls it,t he
thus describes Socinus : " He was of a noble family, well skilled
in Greek and Hebrew, and irreproachable in his outward con-
duct ; and on these accounts I was on friendly terms with him.
But he was a man full of diverse heresies, which, however, he
never proposed to me, except, as it were, for the purpose of

* " Non est quod expectes, dum ad
ilia, quse objicis, qusestionum portenta
respondeam. Si tibi per aereas illas
speculationes volitare libet, sine me,
qujeso, humilem Christi discipulum ea
meditari, quae ad fidei mese edifica-
tionem faciunt. Ac ego quidem si-
lentio meo id quod cupio consequar,
ne tu milii posthac sis molestiis. Libe-
rale vero ingenium, quod tibi Domi-
nus contulit, non modo in rebus nihili
frustra occupari, ed exitialibus fig-
mentis corrumpi vehementer dolet.
Quod pridera testatus sum, serio
iterum moneo : nisi hunc quserendi
pruritum mature corrigas, metuen-
dum esse, ne tibi gravia tonnenta
accersas. Ego si indulgentise specie
vitium, quod maxime noxium esse
judico, alerem, in te essem perfidus et
crudelis. Itaque paululum nunc mea
asperitate offendi raalo, quam dulci-

bus curiositatis illecebris male captum
non retrahi. Erit tempus, ut spero,
cum te ita violenter expergefactum
fuisse gaudebis." A letter without
date, but probably written in Decem-
ber 1551 or January 1552; See VitaF.
Socini, prefixed to first edition of Bib.
Frat. Polon. Przipcovius, the author of
this Life of Faustus Socinus, professes
to give this extract from Calvin's MS.,
which he had before him. There are
similar indications of his character in
Calvin's letters to him, published in
his Epistolas (Opera, tom. ix. pp. 51,
57, 197). This letter is given in an
English translation, in Bonnet's, edi-
tion of the Letters of Calvin, vol. ii.
p. 315. Bonnet says that it is "pub-
lished here for the first time." He
professes to give it from a Latin copy
in the Library of Geneva,
t Published in 1572.

160 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

disputation, and always putting questions as if he wished for
information. And yet for many years he greatly promoted the
Samosatanian heresy, and led many to adopt it."*

Such was the origin of Socinianism, and such, to a large
extent, has been the kind of men by whom it has been advocated,
although many of them have been fortunate enough to find them-
selves in circumstances that rendered it unnecessary to have re-
course to the policy and management which its founder adopted,
as to the mode of bringing out his opinions.

Sec. 2. — Socinian Views as to Scripture.

The Socinians differ from the great body of Christians in
regard to the subject of the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures.
This was to be expected ; for, as they had made up their minds
not to regulate their views of doctrinal matters by the natural
and obvious meaning of the statements contained in Scripture, it
was quite probable that they would try to depreciate the value and
authority of the Bible, so far as this was not plainly inconsistent
w itli professing a belief, in any sense, in the truth of Christianity.
Tlie position, accordingly, which they maintain upon this point is,
that the Bible contains indeed a revelation from God, but that
it is not itself that revelation, or that it is not in any proper sense
the word of God, though tlie word of God is found in it. They
virtually discard the Old Testament altogether, as having now no
value or importance but what is merely historical. And indeed
they commonly teach that the promise of eternal life was not
revealed, and was wholly unknown, under the Old Testament dis-
pensation ; but w'as conveyed to man, for the first time, by Christ
Himself, when He appeared on earth: men, under the patriarchal
and Mosaic economies, having been, according to this view, very
much in the same situation as the mass of mankind in general, —
that is, being called upon to work out their own eternal happiness
by their own good deeds, though having only a very imperfect
knowledge of God, and of the worship and duty which He re-
quired, and having only a general confidence in His goodness
and mercy, without any certainty or assurance as to their final
destiny. Jesus Clirist, according to Socinians, was a mere man,

* Zancliii Opera, torn. i. Gcnev. 1G19.

Sec. II.] SOCINIAN VIEWS AS TO SCRIPTURE. 161

who was appointed by God to convey His will more fully to men ;
and the sole object of His mission was to communicate to men
more correct and complete information concerning God and
duty, — and especially to convey to them the assurance of a
future state of blessedness, to be enjoyed by all who should do
what they could in worshipping and serving God, according to
the information He had communicated to them.

They profess, then, to receive as true, upon this ground, all
that Christ Himself taught. They admit that the teaching of
Christ is, in the main, and as to its substance, correctly enough
set forth in the New Testament ; and they do not allege that it
can be learned from any other source. But then, as to the books
which compose the New Testament, they maintain that they were
the unaided compositions of the men whose names they bear ; and
deny that they, the authors, had any special supernatural assistance
or superintendence from God in the production of them. They
look on the evangelists simply as honest and faithful historians,
who had good opportunities of knowing the subjects about which
they wrote, and who intended to relate everything accurately, as
far as their opportunities and memories served them ; but who,
having nothing but their own powers and faculties to guide them,
may be supposed, like other historians, to have fallen sometimes
into inadvertencies and errors. And as to the apostles of our
Lord, whose writings form part of the canon of the New Testa-
ment, or the substance of whose teaching is there recorded, they
commonly deny to them any infallible supernatural guidance, and
admit that they were well acquainted with the views of their
Master, and intended faithfully to report them, and to follow
them in their own preaching. But they think that the apostles
probably sometimes misunderstood or misapprehended them ; and
that they are not to be implicitly followed in the reasonings or
illustrations they employed to enforce their teaching, — an obser-
vation, of course, specially directed against the Apostle Paul.

With these views of the apostles and evangelists, and of the
books of the New Testament, they think themselves warranted
in using much greater liberty with its words and language, in the
way of labouring to force them into an accordance with their
system of theology, than can be regarded as at all warrantable
by those who believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God, — that holy men wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of
3 — VOL. II. L

162 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

God. Socinians are also fond of dwelling upon all those topics
which seem fitted to shake in men's minds a due sense of the
reverence with which the sacred Scriptures ought, as being the
word of God, to be regarded, — such as the obscurity attaching to
some of their statements, and the difficulty of ascertaining their
true meaning ; the various readings, and the difficulty in some
cases of ascertaining the true text ; the apparent inconsistencies,
and the difficulty occasionally of reconciling them. In discussing
these and similar topics, they follow the example of the Papists, —
treat them commonly in the same light or semi-infidel spirit ; and
their general object is the same, — namely, to insinuate the unfit-
ness of the Bible, as it stands, to be a full and accurate directory
of faith and practice, so as to leave it men's only business to ascer-
tain the true and exact meaning of its statements, that they may
implicitly submit to them. These topics they are fond of dwelling
upon, and of setting forth with prominence, and even exaggeration.
And the application they make of them is, — first, and more speci-
fically, to disprove the inspiration of the books of Scripture ; and,
secondly^ and more generally, to warrant and encourage the use of
considerable liberty in dealing with their statements, and to cherish
a feeling of uncertainty as to the accuracy of the results that may
be deduced from an examination of them. They thus make it
sufficiently manifest, just as the Papists do, that they are rather
disposed to shrink from a trial of their doctrines, by a direct and
impartial examination of the exact sense and import of the whole
statements of Scripture, as they stand. They are fond, indeed,
of declaiming upon the supremacy of the Scriptures, as the only
rule of faith, in opposition to all human authorities, councils,
creeds, confessions, etc., etc. ; and though this general principle
is unquestionably true and sound, yet it will commonly be found
that there are, in Socinian and rationalistic declamations upon the
subject, quite as plain indications of a feeling of soreness, that the
creeds and confessions of human authority — that is, of almost all
who have ever professed to draw their faith from the Bible — have
been decidedly opposed to their theological views, as of reverence for
the Scriptures. And there is ground for suspecting that the main
reason of their preference for the Bible alone, is because they think
they can show that the Scriptures are capable of being so dealt
with as to countenance, or at least not to oppose, their system ;
while creeds and confessions commonly are not. Still Socinians

Sec. II.] SOCINIAN VIEWS AS TO SCRIPTURE, 163

have generally admitted, at least theoretically and in words, down
till their recent adoption in our own day, both in America and in
Britain, of the entire anti-super naturalism of German neologians,
that the true sense of Scripture, when correctly and clearly ascer-
tained, was to be practically and substantially the rule or standard
of men's faith ; and have, in consequence, usually undertaken to
show that their system of theology was countenanced by Scrip-
ture, or at least was not opposed to it, but might be held by men
who professed to receive the Bible as the rule of faith.

The leading peculiarity of their system of scriptural inter-
pretation is just the principle, that nothing which is contrary
to reason can be contained in a revelation from God ; and that,
therefore, if any statements of Scripture seem to impute to Jesus
or His apostles the teaching of doctrines which are contrary to
reason, they must, if possible, be explained in such a way as to
avoid this difficulty, and be made to appear to teach nothing but
what is accordant with reason. I will not enter again into the
consideration of the general principle, or of the way and manner
in which it ought to be applied, in so far as it has a foundation
in truth ; but will rather advert now to the way in which the
Socinians actually deal with Scripture, in order to exclude from
it anything irrational ; though this is a topic which I fear can
scarcely be njade useful or interesting, without producing more
in the way of examples than our space permits. It is very plain
that, if it be admitted in general that our faith is to be determined
by ascertaining the meaning of Scripture statements, then the
first and most obvious step to be adopted is just to employ, with
the utmost impartiality and diligence, all the means which are
naturally fitted, as means, to effect this end. If it be true, as it
is, that the special blessing of God, and the guidance and direc-
tion of His Spirit, are necessary to attain this end, let us abound
in prayer that we may receive it. If the use of all the ordinary
critical and philological means and appliances which are appli-
cable to the interpretation of such a collection of documents as
the Bible contains, is necessary to this end, — as it is, — then let
all these be diligently and faitlifully employed ; and let the result
be deliberately and impartially ascertained, in the exercise of
sound reason and common sense. This should evidently be the
way in which the work should be entered on ; and then, in so
far as the principle about alleged contrariety to reason is true and

164 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIIT.

sound, and admits of being fairly applied, let it be applied fully
and frankly to the actual result of the critical and philological
investigation, whatever may be the legitimate consequences of the
application. But the Socinians commonly reverse this natural
and legitimate process. They first lay down the principle, that
certain doctrines — such as the Trinity, the hypostatical union, the
atonement, the eternity of punishment — are irrational, or incon-
sistent with what natural reason teaches about God ; and then,
under the influence of this conviction, already existing, they pro-
ceed to examine Scripture for the purpose, not of simply ascer-
taining what it teaches, but of showing that these doctrines are
not taught there, or at least that this cannot be proved.

Now this condition of things, and the state of mind which it
implies or produces, are manifestly unfavourable to a fair and im-
partial use of the means naturally fitted to enable men to ascertain
correctly what Scripture teaches. Impartiality, in these circum-
stances, is not to be expected, — it would betray an ignorance of
the known principles of human nature to look for it. Those who
believe in these doctrines profess to have found them in Scripture,
fairly interpreted, in the use of the ordinary appropriate means, —
to base them upon no other foundation, — to know nothing about
them but what is stated there, — and to be willing to renounce
them, whenever it can be proved that they are not taught in the
Bible ; while the Socinians are placed, by this principle of theirs,
in this position, — as some of the bolder and more straightforward
among them have not scrupled to avow, — that they would not
believe these doctrines, even if it could be proved to their satis-
faction that they were plainly taught by the apostles. Still they
usually profess to undertake to show that they are not taught in
Scripture, or at least that no sufficient evidence of a critical and
philological kind has been produced to prove that they are taught
there. The violent perversion of all the legitimate and recognised
principles and rules of philology and criticism, to which they have
been obliged to have recourse in following out this bold under-
taking, can be illustrated only by examples taken from the discus-
sions of particular doctrines, and the interpretation of particular
texts ; but we may advert briefly to one or two of the more general
features of their ordinary mode of procedure in this matter.

In regard to the text of the New Testament, they are accus-
tomed to catch eagerly at, and to try to set forth with something

Sec. II.] SOCINIAN VIEWS AS TO SCRIPTURE. 165

like plausibility, the most meagre and superficial critical evidence
against the genuineness or integrity of particular passages, — as has
been fully proved with respect to the attempts they have made to
exclude, as spurious, the first two chapters both of Matthew and
of Luke, because of their containing an account of the miracu-
lous conception of Christ ; and they sometimes even venture upon
mere conjectural emendations of the text, which have not a
shadow of critical authority to support them, — as, for instance,
in their criticism upon Rom. ix. 5, — a practice condemned by all
impartial critics.

In the interpretation of Scripture, one of the general presump-
tions which they are fond of using is this, — that the texts adduced
in support of some doctrine which they reject, are brought only
from one or two of the books of the New Testament, — that the
alleged proofs of it are not by any means so clear, so frequent, or
so widely diffused as might have been expected, if the doctrine in
question had been intended to be taught, — or that no apparent
proofs of it occur in passages where they might have been looked
for, if the doctrine were true. In dealing with such considera-
tions, which Socinians frequently insist upon, the defenders of
orthodox doctrine usually maintain, — first, that most of the doc-
trines which Socinians reject are clearly and frequently taught in
Scripture, and that statements affording satisfactory evidence of
their truth, more formal or more incidental, are found to pervade
the word of God ; and, secondly, that even if it were not so, yet a
presumption based upon such considerations is unwarranted and
unreasonable : for that we have no right, because no sure ground
to proceed upon in attempting, to prescribe or determine before-
hand, in what particular way, with what measure of clearness or
frequency, or in what places of Scripture, a doctrine should be
stated or indicated ; but are bound to receive it, provided only God,
in His word, has given us sufficient grounds for believing it to have
been revealed by Him. If the doctrine can be shown to be really
taught in Scripture, this should be sufficient to command our
assent, even though it should not be so fully and so frequently
stated or indicated there as we might perhaps have expected be-
forehand, on the supposition of its being true ; especially as it is
manifest that the word of God, in its whole character and com-
plexion, has been deliberately constructed on purpose to call forth
and require men's diligence and attention in the study of its

166 THE SOCINTAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

meaning, and in the comparison of its statements ; and to test also
men's fairness, candour, and impartiality, as indicated by their
being satisfied or not with reasonable and sufficient, though it may
be not overwhelming, evidence of the doctrines there revealed.

Another general consideration, often insisted on by Socinians,
in order to help out the very meagre evidence they can produce
that particular passages in Scripture do not teach the orthodox
doctrine, is this, — that all that they need to prove is, that the
passage in question does not necessarily sanction the orthodox
doctrine, but may possibli/ be understood in a different sense ; and
then they contend that they have done this at least. They often
admit that, upon critical and philological grounds, a particular
passage mat/ be taken in the orthodox sense ; but they contend
that they have disproved the allegation that it must be taken
in that sense, and that this is sufficient. Now, here again,
orthodox divines maintain, — first, that in regard to many of
the passages, the meaning of which is controverted between
them and the Socinians, it can be shown, not only that they may,
but that they must, bear the orthodox sense, and that no other
sense is consistent with a fair application to them of the ordi-
nary rules of philology, grammar, and criticism ; and, secondly,
that the Socinian demand that this must be proved in all cases, or
indeed in any case, is unreasonable and overstrained. We may
concede to the Socinians, that, in the controversy with them, the
onus prohandi lies properly upon us, and that we must produce
sufficient and satisfactory evidence of the truth of our doctrines
from Scripture, before we can reasonably expect them to be re-
ceived. But we cannot admit that any such amount of antecedent
improbability attaches to the doctrines we hold, as to impose upon
us any obligation to do more than show that the Scripture, ex-
plained according to the ordinary legitimate principles and rules
applicable to the matter, teaches, and was intended to teach, them,
— that a man, examining fairly and impartially as to what the
Scripture sets forth upon these points, would naturally, and as a
matter of course, without straining or bias to either side, come to
the conclusion that our doctrines are taught there, — and that these
are the doctrines which the Scriptures were evidently intended, as
they are fitted, to inculcate. We wish simply to know what the
actual language of Scripture, when subjected to the ordinary legi-
timate processes of criticism, really gives out, — what it seems to

Sec. II.]

SOCINIAN VIEWS AS TO SCRIPTURE.

167

have been really intended to convey. The resolution with which
the Socinians set out, of labouring to establish a bare possibility
that the words may not have the sense we ascribe to them, — that
they may hy possibility have a different meaning, — has no reason-
able foundation to rest upon ; and it produces a state of mind
manifestly opposed to anything like a candid and impartial in-
vestigation of what it is that the Scripture truly means. Under
the influence of this resolution, men will generally find no diffi-
culty in getting up some plausible grounds for asserting that
almost any conceivable statement does not necessarily mean what
appears plainly to be its real and intended meaning, and that it
might by possibility mean something else ; while they lose sight
of, and wholly miss, the only question that legitimately ought to
have been entertained, — namely, What is the true and real mean-
ing which the words bear, and were intended to bear ?

It is in entire accordance with these unreasonable and over-
strained principles of interpretation, that Mr. Belsham — who held
the most prominent place among the Socinians of this country at
the conclusion of last century and the beginning of this — lays it
down as one of his general exegetical rules,* that " impartial and
sincere inquirers after truth must be particularly upon their guard
against what is called the natural signification of words and
phrases," — a statement manifestly implying a consciousness that
Socinianism requires to put a forced and unnatural construction
upon scriptural expressions, such as would not readily commend
itself to the common sense of upright men, unless they were pre-
pared for it by something like a plausible generality, in the form
of an antecedent rule. It is, however, just the natural significa-
tion of words and phrases that we are bound, by the obligations of
candour and integrity, to seek : meaning thereby, that we are
called upon to investigate, in the fair use of all legitimate means
and appliances suitable to the case, what the words were really
designed to express ; and having ascertained this, either to receive
it as resting upon the authority of God, or, should there seem to
be adequate grounds for it, on account of the real and unques-
tionable contrariety to reason of the doctrine thus brought out, to

* Belsham's Calm Inquiry^ Introd.
pp. 4, 6 ; quoted and animadverted
on in Abp. Magee's Supplement to the

Remarks on the Unitarian Version of
the New Testament — Works^ vol. ii.
p. 108.

168 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

reject the document containing it as resting upon no authority
whatever.*

Sec. 3. — Socinian System of Theology.

Having explained the origin and causes of Socinianism, and
the principles and leading features of the plan on which its sup-
porters proceed in the interpretation of Scripture, we have now
to give some exposition of the system of theology which, by the
application of these principles, the Socinians have deduced from
Scripture ; or, to speak more correctly, which they consider them-
selves warranted in holding, notwithstanding their professed belief
in the divine origin of the Christian revelation. We have been
accustomed to speak of Socinianism as just implying a rejection or
denial of all the peculiar and fundamental doctrines of the Chris-
tian system, as revealed in the sacred Scriptures ; and this is, so
far as it goes, a correct, though but a negative and defective,
description of it. Socinianism, however, is not a mere negation :
it implies a system of positive opinions upon all the important
topics of theology, in regard to the divine character and moral
government, — the moral character, capacities, and obligations of
mankind, — the person and the work of Jesus Christ, — the whole
method of salvation, — and the ultimate destinies of men. It is
common, indeed, to speak of the meagre or scanty creed of the
Socinians; and in one sense the description is unquestionably
correct, for it includes scarcely any of those doctrines which have
been usually received by the great body of professing Christians
as taught in Scripture. And when thus compared with the sys-
tem of doctrine that has commonly been held in the Christian
church, it may be regarded as being, to a large extent, of a nega-
tive character, and very scanty in its dimensions. At the same
time, it should be observed, that while in one point of view the
Socinian creed may be regarded as very meagre and scanty, inas-
much as it contains scarcely any of those doctrines which Chris-
tians in general have found in the word of God, yet it really
contains a system of opinions, and jjositive opinions, upon all those
topics to which these doctrines relate. The ideas most commonly
associated with the name of Socinianism are just the denial or

* Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony, Book i., especially last chapter, in
reply to Belsham.

Sec. in.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 169

rejection of the doctrines of the Trinitj', of the proper divinity of
Christ and of His vicarious atonement, and of the personahty of
the Spirit. And without adverting at present to other features of
the Socinian system, it ought to be observed, that while they deny
or reject the doctrines that have been commonly held by the
Christian church upon these points, they have their own doctrines
regarding them, which are not mere negations, but may be, and are,
embodied in positive propositions. They not only deny the doc-
trine of the Trinity, but they positively assert that the Godhead is
one in person as well as in essence. They not only deny the proper
divinity of Jesus Christ, but they positively assert that He was a
mere man, — that is, a man and nothing else, or more than a man.
They not only deny the vicarious atonement of Christ, which most
other professing Christians reckon the foundation of their hopes
for eternity, but they assert that men, by their own repentance
anil good works, procure the forgiveness of their sins and the
enjoyment of God's favour ; and thus, while denying that, in any
proper sense, Christ is their Saviour, they teach that men save
themselves, — that is, in so far as they need salvation. While they
deny that the Spirit is a person who possesses the divine nature,
they teach that the Holy Ghost in Scripture describes or expresses
merely a quality or attribute of God. They have their own i^osi-
tive doctrines upon all these points, — doctrines which their creed
embraces, and which their writings inculcate. On all these topics
their creed is really as wide and comprehensive as that of any
other section of professing Christians, though it differs greatly
from what has been generally received in the Christian church,
and presents all these important subjects in a very different aspect.
Socinians, as Dr. Owen observes,* are fond of taking the
place, and sustaining the part, of respondents merely in contro-
versy ; and it is no doubt true, that if they could succeed in show-
ing that our doctrines receive no countenance from Scripture, we
would not only be called upon to renounce these doctrines, but,
in doing so, would at the same time, as a matter of course, em-
brace views substantially Socinian. Still it is right and useful
that, during the controversy, we should have distinct and definite
conceptions of what are the alternatives, — of what are their doc-
trines upon all points as well as our own, and of what are the

* Dr. Owen, Pref. to Vindicise Evangelicx.

170 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIIL

positive opinions which we must be prepared to embrace and main-
tain, if we think we see ground to abandon the orthodox system
of doctrine and to adopt the Socinian. We are not to imagine,
then, that what is commonly called the scanty creed of Soci-
nianism is a mere negation ; and we are to regard it as virtually
embodying positive doctrines upon those points on which we our-
selves hold opinions, — though opinions very different from theirs.
There is another observation of a general kind which I think
it important that we should remember, — namely, that Socinianism
really includes a scheme of doctrines upon all the leading subjects
of theology, — upon all the main topics usually discussed in theo-
logical systems. The common impression is, that Socinianism
merely describes certain views upon the subjects of the Trinity
and the atonement; and these topics, indeed, have always and
necessarily had much prominence in the controversies that have
been carried on with the Socinians or Unitarians. But right,or
wrong views upon these points must, from the nature of the case,
materially affect men's opinions upon all other important topics in
theology ; and, in point of fact, Socinianism, even in the writings
of its founders, was a fully developed system of doctrine upon
everything material that enters, or has been supposed to enter, into
the scheme of revelation. Socinianism has its own Theology in
the strictest and most limited sense of that word, — that is, its pecu-
liar views about God, His attributes and moral government, as
well as its negation of a personal distinction in the Godhead. It
has its own Antlu'opology, — that is, its own peculiar views in re-
gard to the moral character and capacities of mankind as we find
them in this world, though here it has just adopted the old Pela-
gian system. It has its own Christology, or its peculiar views as
to who or what Christ was, — though here it has followed very
much what were called the Samosatanian and Photinian heresies
of early times ; names, indeed, by which it was often designated
by the writers of the seventeenth century. It has its own Soteri-
ology, — that is, its peculiar views of the plan of salvation, — of the
way and manner in which men individually are saved, or actually
attain to final happiness, — as comprehending the topics usually
discussed under the heads of the atonement or satisfaction of Christ,
justification, regeneration, and the work of the Holy Spirit ; on
the latter topic, indeed, adopting substantially the views of the
Pelagians ; but with respect to the first of them, — namely, the

Sec. III.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 171

atonement, — they have discoveries and demerits which may be said
to be almost wholly their own. They have their own Eschatology,
as it is called, — that is, their peculiar views in regard to those topics
which are usually discussed in theological systems under the
general head " De novissimis," or the last things, — and especially
the resurrection and the final punishment, or the fate and destiny,
of the wicked. And besides all this, they have views in a great
measure peculiar to themselves, and in full harmony with the
general character and tendency of their theological system, on the
subjects of the Church, and especially of the Sacraments. We
have a sounder view of what Socinianism is, and can form a juster
apprehension of the estimate that ought to be made of it, when
we regard it as a complete and well-digested system, extending
over the whole field of theology, and professing to present a full
account of all the leading topics which it most concerns men to
know, of everything bearing upon their relation to God and tJieir
eternal welfare ; a system, indeed, taking up and embodying some
of the worst and most pernicious of the heresies which had pre-
viously distracted and injured the church, but likewise adding
some important heretical contributions of its own, and presenting
them, in combination, in a form much more fully developed,
much better digested and compacted, and much more skilfully
defended, than ever they had been before. It may tend to bring
out this somewhat more fully, if we give a brief statement of
what the views are which have been commonly held by Socinians
on these different subjects, mainly for the purpose of illustrating
the unity and harmony of their theological system, and showing
that the controversy with the Socinians is not a mere dispute
about some particular doctrines, however important these may be,
but really involves a contest for everytldng that is peculiar and
important in the Christian system.

It is true of all systems of theology, — taking that word in its
wide and common sense, as implying a knowledge of all matters
bearing upon our relation to God and our eternal destinies, — that
they are materially influenced, in their general character and
complexion, by the views which they embody about the divine
attributes, character, and government, — that is, about theology
in the restricted meaning of 'the word, or the doctrine con-
cerning God. Hence we find that, in many systems of theology,
there are introduced, under the head " De Deo," and in the expo-

172 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap.*XX1II.

sltion of the divine attributes, discussions more or less complete,
of many topics that are afterwards taken up and illustrated more
fully under their own proper heads, — such as providence, predesti-
nation, and grace. Socinians have sought, like other theologians,
to lay the foundation of their system of doctrine in certain pecu-
liar views in regard to the divine attributes. Orthodox divines
have commonly charged them with denying, or explaining away,
certain attributes which reason and Scripture seem to unite in
ascribing to God, with the view of diminishing the perfection of
the divine glory and character, and thereby removing arguments
in favour of orthodox doctrines, and bringing in presumptions in
favour of their own. I cannot enter into details, but may briefly
advert to two of the principal topics that are usually brought into
the discussion of this subject.

Socinianism — and indeed this may be said of most other sys-
tems of false religion — represents God as a Being whose moral
character is composed exclusively of goodness and mercy, — of
a mere desire to promote the happiness of His creatures, and a
perfect readiness at once to forgive and to bless all who have
transgressed against Him. They thus virtually exclude from the
divine character that immaculate holiness which is represented in
Scripture as leading God to hate sin, and that inflexible justice
which we are taught to regard as constraining Him to inflict on
sinners the punishment which He has threatened, and which they
have merited. The form in which this topic is commonly dis-
cussed in more immediate connection wath Socinianism, is this :
whether vindicative or punitive justice — that is, justice which
constrains or obliges to give to sinners the punishment they have
deserved — be an actual quality of God, — an attribute of the
divine nature ? The ^discussion of this question occupies a pro-
minent place in many works on the atonement ; the Socinians
denying that there is any such quality in God, — anything in His
nature or character which throws any obstacle or impediment in
the way of His at once pardoning transgressors, without any
satisfaction to His justice ; while orthodox divines have gene-
rally contended for the existence of such a quality or attribute
in God, and for its rendering necessary a vicarious atonement or
satisfaction, in order that sinners might be forgiven.

The other topic under this general head to which we propose
to advert, is that of the divine omniscience. Orthodox divines

Sec. III.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY 173

have always contended that scriptural views of tliis attribute, and
of its application, afforded powerful arguments in favour of that
entire dependence of men upon God's will and purposes which
may be said to be a characteristic of the Calvinistic scheme of
theology ; and, accordingly, the discussion of it, and of the infer-
ences that may be legitimately deduced from it, has entered largely
into the Arminian controversy. The Socinians agree in the main
with the Arminians upon this subject, — that is, so far as concerns
a denial of Calvinistic doctrines ; but being somewhat bolder and
more unscrupulous than the Arminians, they have adopted a some-
what different mode of arriving at the same conclusion. The
Arminians generally admit that God certainly foresees all future
contingent events, such as the future actions of men exercising,
without constraint, their natural powers of volition ; but how this
can be reconciled with their doctrine, that He has not fore-ordained
these events, they do not pretend to explain. They leave this
unexplained, as the great difficulty admittedly attaching to their
system, or rather, as the precise place where they are disposed to
put the difficulty which attaches to all systems that embrace at
once the foreknowledge of God and the responsibility of man.
The Socinians, however, being less easily staggered by the conclu-
sive Scripture evidence of God's foreseeing the future free actions
of men, especially that arising from the undoubted fact that He
has so often predicted what they would be, boldly deny that He
foresees these actions, or knows anything about them, until they
come to pass ; except, it may be, in some special cases, in which,
contrary to His usual practice. He has fore-ordained the event, and
foresees it because He has fore-ordained it. That they may seem,
indeed, not to derogate from God's omniscience, they admit indeed
that God knows all things that are knowable ; but then they
contend that future contingent events, such as the future actions
of responsible agents, are not knowable, — do not come within the
scope of what may be known, even by an infinite Being ; and,
upon this ground, they allege that it is no derogation from the
omniscience of God, that He does not, and cannot, know what
is not knowable. They think that in this way, by denying the
divine foreknowledge of future contingencies, they most effec-
tually overturn the Calvinistic doctrine of God's fore-ordaining
whatsoever comes to pass ; while they, at the same time, concede
to the Calvinists, in opposition to the Arminian view, that God's

174

THE SOCINIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXIII.

certain foreknowledge of the actions of men lays an immoveable
foundation for the position that He has fore-ordained them.

It may be worth while to mention upon this point — for the fact
is both very curious and very important — that, in what is probably
the earliest summary ever given of the whole Socinian system of
doctrine, after it was fully developed, in a little work, understood
to have been written with the view of explaining arid defending it,
by Ostorodus and Voidovius, when in 1598 they were sent from
Poland on a mission into the Low Countries, in order to propa-
gate their doctrines there, it is expressly assigned as a reason why
they denied God's foreknowledge of the future actions of men,
that there was no other way of escaping from the Calvinistic
doctrine of predestination.* We shall afterwards have an oppor-
tunity of showing that there is more truth and consistency in the
Socinian than in the Arminian view upon this particular point,
while they agree in the general conclusion, in opposition to Cal-
vinists ; but, in the meantime, the two instances we have given
will show how wide and extensive are the Socinian heresies, and
how thoroughly accordant it is with the general character and
tendency of their system to indulge in presumptuous speculations
about the incomprehensible God, — to obscure the glory of His
adorable perfections, — and to bring Him nearer to the level of
the creatures whom He has formed. As the Trinity must after-
wards be more fully discussed, I say nothing more about it at
present, except this, — that here, too, Socinians manifest the same
qualities and tendencies, by presuming to claim such a thorough
knowledge of what the divine unity is, and of what it consists in,
as to be warranted in maintaining, as a first and certain principle,
that it is necessarily inconsistent with a personal distinction, or a
plurality of persons, and generally by insisting on applying to the
divine nature notions and conceptions derived wholly from what
takes place and is exhibited among men.

I have said that the Socinian doctrine about the moral charac-
ter and capacities of mankind is just a revival of the old Pelagian

* Vide Mosheim, Cent. xvi. chap,
iv. sec. xiv. Cloppenburgii Compeu-
dioliim Sociiiianismi confutatum, 0.
vi., quoted also by AVitsius, De (Econ.
Fond, lib. iii. c. iv. sec. xii. As to
the authorship of this Compend, see

Sandii Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum,
p. 91 ; Buddrei Isagor/e, torn. i. p.
380, ed. 1730 ; Wallace's Antitrini-
tarian Biography^ vol. ii. pp. 400 and

405.

Sec. III.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 1 75

heresy. Of course it amounts in substance to a denial of the fall
and of all original depravity, and to an assertion that men are now,
as to all moral qualities, tendencies, and capacities, in the same
condition as when the race was created. The image of God in
which man was formed, consisted, according to them, merely in
dominion over the creatures, and not in any moral perfection or
excellence of nature. Adam had no original righteousness, or
positive holy tendency of moral nature, any more than we have ;
and, of course, did not lose any quality of that sort by the sin into
which he fell. He committed an act of sin, and thereby incurred
the divine displeasure ; but he retained the same moral nature and
tendencies with which he was created, and transmitted these un-
impaired to his posterity. He was created naturally mortal, and
would have died whether he had sinned or not. Men are now, in
moral nature and tendencies, just as pure and holy as Adam was
when he came from the hand of his Creator, — without any proper
holiness of nature, indeed, or positive tendency and inclination, in
virtue of their moral constitution, to love and obey God, for that
Adam never had ; but also without any proneness or tendency to
sin, although we are placed in somewhat more unfavourable cir-
cumstances than he was, in consequence of the many examples of
sin which we see and hear of, — a position which somewhat increases
the chances of our actually falling into sin. Still men may avoid
sin altogether ; and some do so, and obtain eternal blessedness as
the reward of their perfect obedience. And in regard to those
who do commit actual^ sin, and are guilty of transgression, this at
least is plain in general, — that since men are weak or frail, though
not sinful or depraved creatures, and since God is nothing but a
kind and merciful Father, and has no punitive justice as a con-
stituent element of His character, there can be no difficulty in
their obtaining His forgiveness, and being restored to His favour,
and thus escaping all the consequences of their transgressions.

As it is true that men's whole theological system is usually
connected intimately with the views or impressions they may
have been led to form of God's character and government, so
it is equally true that their whole views upon theological subjects
are greatly affected by the opinions they may have been led to
form of the fall of Adam, and its bearing upon his posterity.
Sound and scriptural views upon this important subject are in-
dispensably necessary to anything like a correct system of theo-

176 THE SOCINTAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

logy ; and errors in regard to it spread darkness and confusion
over the whole field of theological investigation. Nothing has
been more fully brought out by the history of theological discus-
sions than the truth of this position ; and the case of Socinianism
most strikingly confirms it. If man has not fallen and ruined
himself, he has no need of a Saviour, or of any extraordinary
intei'position of God, in order to his salvation. Sin can be no
very heinous matter, when committed by such frail creatures as
men are ; and when viewed in connection with the character of
so gracious and benevolent a being as God is, cannot be supposed
to occasion any very great difficulty, or to require any very ex-
traordinary provision, in order to its being forgiven and removed.
And, accordingly, the whole Socinian system is based upon these
general notions and impressions. He whom most other persons
that take the name of Christians regard as their Saviour, and
whom they believe to be represented in Scripture as God over
all, — a possessor of the divine nature, — and to be held up there
as the sole author of their salvation, an object of unbounded
confidence and reverence, affection and worship, — and whom
all admit to have been sent into the world that He might do
everything that was needful, whatever that might he, to secure
the salvation of men, — is regarded by the Socinians as a mere
man, who had no higher nature than the human, who had no
existence till He was born in Bethlehem, who did nothing, and
who had nothing to do, for the fulfilment of His mission, but
to communicate fuller and more certain information about the
divine character and government, the path of duty, and future
blessedness, and to set before them an example of obedience to
God's law and will. What they say of Christ is true, so far as
it goes. He was a man, and He did what they ascribe to Him.
But it is not the whole truth, and He did much more for our
salvation. Were the Socinian view of man's natural condition
correct, a mere man, who came to communicate information
and to exhibit an example, might have sufficed for all that was
needed. No satisfaction required to be made to divine justice,
no righteousness to be wrought out, no change needed to be
effected upon men's moral nature. And of course there was no
need of a Divine Saviour to expiate and intercede, or of a Divine
Spirit to renew and sanctify. All this is superfluous, and there-
fore it is wholly discarded. The condition of man did not re-

Sec. III.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 177

quire it, and indeed did not admit of it ; and therefore God did
not provide it. Men needed only to be assured of God's readiness
to pardon all their sins, without satisfaction to His justice, and
to get clearer and more certain information than they could very
readily procure themselves as to the course they ought to pursue,
in order to share more abundantly in God's favour. This was not
indeed altogether indispensable, but highly desirable. And God
might have communicated it to men in many ways ; but He has
chosen to convey it by One who, though described in Scripture
as the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of
His person, was yet nothing more than a mere partaker of flesh
and blood like ourselves. The sins of men are forgiven merely
because God's nature leads Him to forgive, and does not lead
Him to punish sin. They need no change upon their moral con-
stitution ; accordingly, no provision has been made for changing
it. They need merely to be instructed how they can best im-
prove what they have, and most successfully exercise their own
natural powers. And this, accordingly, was the sole end of
Christ's mission, and of the revelation which He gave.

Christ is undoubtedly spoken of in Scripture as a Prophet, a
Priest, and a King; and it has been generally supposed that these
different offices, ascribed to Him, express, or indicate, the three
chief departments of the work which He was to execute, in order
to promote the spiritual welfare of men. The old Socinians
reduced them to two, — virtually rejecting the priestly office alto-
gether, or conjoining and confounding it with the kingly one ;
while modern Socinians have still further simplified the work by
abolishing the kingly office of Christ, and resolving all into the
prophetical. In the Racovian Catechism — which fills, in the com-
plete edition of 1680, very nearly two hundred pages — four pages
are devoted to the kingly office, six are assigned to the priestly or
sacerdotal office ; and these six are chiefly devoted to the object
of proving that Christ was not a priest, and did not execute
priestly functions upon earthy although it is admitted that He
did so, in some vague and indefinite sense, after He ascended to
heaven. The exposition of the prophetical office occupies nearly
one hundred pages, or one-half of the whole work. And as this
was really and substantially, upon Socinian principles, the only
office Christ executed, they endeavour to make the most of it. A
considerable space is occupied, in the Racovian Catechism, — and
3 — VOL. II. M

178 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap.XXIIL

on this account, also, in many of the older works written against
the Socinians, — in the discussion of this question, Whether Christ,
in the execution of His prophetical office, revealed to, and imposed
upon, men a new code of moral duty, — imposed upon them new
and stricter moral precepts which were not previously binding,
in virtue of anything which they would learn from the exercise
of their own faculties, or from any revelation which God might
have formerly given. The Socinians of course maintained the
affirmative upon this question, in opposition to orthodox divines.
And the reason is manifest, — namely, that since Christ had
nothing else to do, in the fulfilment of His mission upon earth,
but just to reveal, or make known, matters of doctrine and duty,
the more of tids work. He did, the more plausible will seem the
Socinian account of His mission, viewed in connection with the
exalted representations that seem to be given us of it in Scrip-
ture, even though that account omits everything about satisfying
divine justice, and thereby reconciling us to God. But then it
did not suit the tendency and genius of the Socinian system, to
ascribe to Him much work in the way of revealing to men new
truths or doctrines. According to their views of things, very
little doctrine is needed, except what men can easily and readily
acquire ; for though, as I have explained, they have their own
positive opinions upon most theological points, there are very few
doctrines which they reckon fundamental. Certain notions about
the divine character, and some certainty about a future state of
happiness for good men, constitute all, in the way of doctrine,
that is necessary or very important. And hence the old Soci-
nians laid the main stress, in expounding the prophetical office of
Christ and unfolding the object of His mission, upon His making
important additions to the precepts of the moral law, and impos-
ing upon men moral obligations which were not previously bind-
ing. They were accustomed to draw out, in detail, the instances
of the additions He made to the moral law, and the reasons on
account of which they held that the particular cases alleged were
instances of the general position they maintained upon this point;
and the discussion of all this occupies one-fourth part of the
Eacovian Catechism. The general position, of course, can be
proved only, if at all, by an induction of particulars ; and these
they ranked under two heads : first, the additions Christ made to
precepts which had formerly been given in the Old Testament,

Sec. hi.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 179

but wliicli in many instances, they allege, He rendered more
strict and extensive ; and, secondly, in the precepts He intro-
duced which were wholly new. Under the first head they go
over the ten commandments, and endeavour to show that, in
regard to every one of them, the New Testament imposes some
additional obligation which was not bindino;, and might have been
disregarded or violated without sin, under the law as given by
Moses from Mount Sinai, — making use for this purpose chiefly of
some of the statements contained in our Saviour's sermon upon
the Mount. And so, in like manner, under the second head,
they select a number of New Testament precepts, and endeavour
to show that they impose duties which were not binding under
the Old Testament economy.

These views are utterly rejected by orthodox divines, Avho, in
the discussion of this subject, have fully shown that Socinians need
to employ as much straining and perverting of Scripture, in order
to make out that Christ added new precepts to the moral law, as
is required to show that He was not made under the law, being
made a curse for us, that He might redeem those who were under
the law. In this way, however, Socinians make out a full and
complete rule of moral duty, communicated to men by Christ ; and
as men have, in the exercise of their own natural capacities, full
power to obey it, in all the length and breadth of its requirements,
without needing renovation and sanctification from the Spirit, there
is no difficulty in their securing their own eternal happiness.

The old Socinians inculcated — and, so far as outward conduct
is concerned, usually acted upon — a high standard of morality,
putting commonly the strictest interpretation upon the moral pre-
cepts of the New Testament. Their general system, upon the
grounds already explained, naturally led to the adoption of these
views, and zeal for the system naturally induced them to attempt
to follow them out in practice ; just as other false views in religion
have often led men to submit to the severest hardships and mor-
tifications. But experience abundantly proves that, constituted
as human nature is, no attempt to carry out a high standard of
morality will ever succeed, for any great length of time, or among
any considerable number of men, which is not based upon the scrip-
tural system of doctrine ; upon right views of the moral nature
of man, and of the provision made, under the Christian scheme,
by the work of Christ and the operation of the Spirit, for reno-

180 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

vating and sanctifying it. And, accordingly, modern Socinians
have wholly abandoned the strict and austere morality of the
founders of their system. They commonly .exhibit the character
and the conduct of mere irreligious and ungodly men of the
world ; and while they still profess to open up heaven to men as
the reward of their own good deeds, wrought in their own un-
aided strength, — that is, without any aid except the ordinary
assistance of God in providence, as He upholds and sustains all
things, — they seem to have discovered, by some means with which
the old Socinians were unacquainted, that a very scanty supply
of good works, and especially very little of anything done from
a regard to God, to the promotion of His glory and honour, is
amply sufficient to accomplish the important end, and to secure
men's everlasting happiness.*

Under this same general head of the prophetical office of
Christ, the Eacovian Catechism has a chapterf on the subject
of His death, — the place which that great event occupies in the
Christian scheme, and the purposes it was intended to serve. As
it was a fundamental principle of the old Socinians, that Christ
did not execute the office of a priest upon earth, — though they
admitted that He did so, in some vague and indefinite sense, after
His ascension to heaven, — His suffering of death, of course, did
not belong to the execution of the priestly, but of the prophetical
office ; in other words, its sole object and design were confined
within the general range of serving to declare and confirm to men
the will of God, — that is, the revelation of an immortality beyond
death, of which no certainty had been given to men before Christ's
death, not even to the most highly favoured servants of God under
the ancient economy. Accordingly, the exposition of the death
of Christ in the Racovian Catechism is mainly devoted to the
object, — first, of proving that it was not, as Christians have com-
monly believed, a satisfaction to divine justice for men's sins,
though it is admitted that Christ might, in some vague and indefi-
nite sense, be described as a sort of piacular victim ; and, secondly,
of showing how it served to declare and confirm the revelation
which God thought proper then to make to men of immortality

* See Fuller's Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined and Compared
as to their Moral Tendency.

t Racov. Cat. c. viii. Ed. 1680.

Sec. III.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 181

and a future life of blessedness for the righteous, — the special
importance which seems to be assigned to it in Scripture, in its
bearing upon the eternal welfare of men, being ascribed to, and
explained by, not any peculiar or specific bearing it had upon the
forgiveness of sin, reconciliation with God, and the enjoyment of
His favour ; but simply this, — that it was a necessary preliminary
to Christ's resurrection, by which chiefly He made known and
established the doctrine of immortality, and thereby presented to
men such views and motive as might induce them, in the exercise
of their own natural powers, to lead such a life as that they would
secure for themselves the forgiveness of any sins which they might
have committed, and the enjoyment of eternal life. This, and
this alone, according to the Socinians, is the place which the death
of Christ holds in the Christian scheme ; and this indirect and
circuitous process is the only way in which it bears upon or affects
men's relation to God and their everlasting destinies. Some
modern Socinians have seriously proposed that the established
phraseology of Christ being the Saviour of sinners should be
wholly abandoned, as being fitted only to delude and deceive men,
by conveying to them the idea that Christ had done, for the pro-
motion of their spiritual welfare, far more than He ever did, and
far more than their natural condition required or admitted of.

With respect to eschatology, or the head "Dg novissimisj" — the
last things, — the general spirit and tendency of Socinians are also
manifested in some important deviations from the doctrines which
have been generally received among Christians as being plainly
taught in Scripture. They have always denied the scriptural doc-
trine of the resurrection — that is, of the resurrection of the same
body — as a thing absurd and impossible ; thus faithfully following
their true progenitors, the infidel Sadducees, and erring, like them,
because, as our Saviour said, they know not the Scriptures nor the
power of God. They admitted, indeed, that there will be what
they call a resurrection, at least of the righteous ; for many of the
old Socinians maintained that the wicked who had died before the
end of the world would not be raised again, but would continue
for ever in a state of insensibility or annihilation, — though this
doctrine is repudiated in the later editions of the Racovian Cate-
chism ; * — but then it was not a resurrection of the same body, but

* Racov. Cat. sec. viii. pp. 179, 180.

182

THE SOCINTAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

the formation and the union to the soul — which they generally
held to have been, during the intervening period, in a state of
insensibility — of a different body. Eternal punishment, of course,
was inconsistent with all their notions of the divine character and
government, of the nature and demerit of sin, and the design
and end of punishment. But they have been a good deal divided
among themselves between the two theories of the entire destruc-
tion or final annihilation of the wicked, and the ultimate restora-
tion of all men to the enjoyment of eternal blessedness after a
period, more or less protracted, of penal suffering. The older
Socinians generally adopted the doctrine of the annihilation of the
wicked, though they sought somewhat to conceal this, by confining
themselves very much to the use of the scriptural language, of
their being subjected to eternal death;* while modern Socinians,
with very few exceptions, advocate the doctrine of universal re-
storation, or the final and eternal happiness of all intelligent
creatures, and hold this to be necessarily involved in, and certainly
deducible from, right views of the divine perfections.

I need not dwell upon the views of Socinians in regard to the
nature of the Christian church and the object and efficacy of the
sacraments. As the sole object of the appearance of Christ upon
earth, and of the whole Christian scheme, was merely to com-
municate to men instruction or information, and not to procure
for them and bestow upon them the forgiveness of their sins, — the
enjoyment of God's favour, — and the renovation of their natures,
— of course the objects of the church and the sacraments, viewed
as means or instruments, must be wholly restricted within the same
narrow range. The church is not, in any proper sense, a divine
institution ; and does not consist of men called by the almighty
grace of God out of the world, and formed by Him into a peculiar
society, the constitution of which He has established, and which
He specially governs and superintends. It is a mere voluntary
association of men, who are naturally drawn together, because
they happen to have adopted somewhat similar views upon reli-
gious subjects, and who seek to promote one another's welfare,

* AYakefield held the doctrine of
annihilation ; while Priestley, after
hesitating long between the doctrines
of annihilation and universal restitu-
tion, finally adopted the latter.

Estlin's Dh^courses on the Universal
Restitution, pp. 69-72.

Dr. Lant Carpenter's Examination
of Magic's Charges against Unitarians
and Unitarianism, 1820, c. iii. pp.
40-44.

Sec. III.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 183

in tlie way that may seem best to their own wisdom ; while the
sacraments are intended to teach men, and to impress divine truth
upon their minds, and are in no way lohatever connected with any
act on God's part in the communication of spiritual blessings.

I have thus given a brief sketch of the Socinian system of
theology, and I would now make one or two reflections obviously
suggested by the survey of it. It is manifestly, as I formerly
explained, a full scheme or system, extending over all the lead-
ing topics of theology. It is plainly characterized throughout by
perfect unity and harmony, by the consistency of all its parts
with each othei', and by the pervading influence of certain leading
features and objects. It might, we think, be shown that the
Socinian system of theology is the only consistent rival to the
Calvinistic one ; and that when men abandon the great features
of the scriptural system of Calvinism, they have no firm and
steady resting-place on which they can take their stand, until they
sink down to Socinianism. It is very evident that the Socinian
system presents a striking contrast, not only to the views of doc-
trine which have been generally professed and maintained by
Christian churches, but to what seems prima facie to be plainly
and palpably taught in Scripture. It must present itself to the
minds of men, who have become at all familiar with scriptural
statements, in the light of an opposition scheme, fitted and in-
tended to counteract and neutralize all that Christianity seems
calculated to teach and to effect ; and a thorough investigation of
the grounds of the attempts which Socinians have made to show
that their system of theology is consistent with Scripture and
sanctioned by it, will only confirm this impression. Socinianism
has been openly and avowedly maintained only by an inconsider-
able number of prqfessing Christians, — many of those who held
the leading principles of the Socinian scheme of theology having
thought it more honest and straightforward to deny at once the
truth of Christianity, than to pretend to receive it, and then to
spend their time and waste their ingenuity in labouring to show
that the scheme of scriptural doctrine was, in almost every impor-
tant particular, the very reverse of what the first promulgators of
the system plainly understood and intended it to be. The churches
of Christ, in general, have held themselves fully warranted in
denying to Socinians the name and character of Christians ; and
the ground of this denial is quite sufficient and satisfactory, —

184 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

namely this, that Socinianism is a deliberate and determined re-
jection of the whole substance of the message which Christ and His
apostles conveyed from God to men. The Racovian Catechism *
asserts that those who refuse to invocate and worship Christ are
not to be reckoned Christians, though they assume His name, and
profess to adhere to His doctrine, — thus excluding from the pale
of Christianity the great body of those who, in modern times, have
adopted the leading features of that scheme of theology which the
old Socinians advanced. And if the denial of worship to Christ
was, as the old Socinians believed, a sufficient ground for deny-
ing to men the name of Christians, it must surely be thoroughly
warrantable to deny the name to men who refuse not only to pay
religious worship to Christ, but to receive and submit to anything
that is really important and vital in the revelations which He
communicated to men.

Mr. Belsham, the leader of the English Socinians in the last
generation, has distinctly stated that the only thing peculiar in
Christianity, or the Christian revelation, — the only point in which
it differs from, or goes beyond, the natural religion that may be
discovered and established by men in the exercise of their own
unaided powers, — is simply the fact of the resurrection of a dead
man, and the confirmation thereby given to the doctrine of a
future immortality. Now, perhaps, we are not entitled to deny
that Socinians are really persuaded of the sufficiency of the evi-
dence by which it is proved that Christ rose from the dead, and
that they hold the doctrine of a future immortality more firmly
and steadily than it was held by Plato or Cicero. But if, profess-
incr to receive Christ as a divine messenger on the ground of the
proof of His resurrection, they yet reject the whole substance of
the message which He professed to bring fr.om God to men, we
cannot concede to them the character or designation of disciples or
followers of Christ. A Christian must, at least, mean one who
believes Christ to have been a divine messenger, and who receives
as true the substance of the message lohich He bore ; and in whatever
way we explain the entire dissolution and breaking up, in the case
of the Socinians, of the right and legitimate connection that ought
to subsist between the admission of the authority of the messenger
and the reception of His message, we cannot recognise as Chris-

* Sec. vi. p. 92.

Sec. III.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 185

tians men who refuse to believe almost everytliing which Christ
and His apostles taught, and whose whole system of theology, —
whose leading views of the character and government of God, the
condition and capacities of men, and the way in which they may
attain to final happiness, — are just the same as they would be if
they openly denied Christ's divine commission, — not only uninflu-
enced by the revelation He communicated, but directly opposed to it.
But while Socinianism has not been, to any very considerable
extent, openly avowed and formally defended in the Christian
church, and while those who have avowed and defended it have
commonly and justly been regarded as not entitled to the desig-
nation of Christians, yet it is important to observe that there has
always been a great deal of latent and undeveloped Socinianism
among men who have professed to believe in the truth of Chris-
tianity; and the cause of this, of course, is, that Socinianism, in
its germs or radical principles, is the system of theology that is
natural to fallen and depraved man, — that which springs up spon-
taneously in the human heart, unenlightened by the Spirit of God,
and unrenewed by divine grace. It has been often said that men
are born Papists ; and this is true in the sense that there are natu-
ral and spontaneous tendencies in men, out of which the Popish
system readily grows, and which make it an easy matter to lead
unrenewed men to embrace it. Still it does require some care and
culture to make a natural man, who has not been subjected to
the system from his infancy, a Papist, though the process in ordi-
nary cases is not a very difficult or a very elaborate one. But it
requires no care or culture whatever to make natural men Soci-
nians, — nothing but the mere throwing off of the traditional or
consuetudinary respect in which, in Christian countries, they may
have been bred for the manifest sense of Scripture. The more
intelligent and enlightened Pagans, and the followers of Mahomet,
agree in substance with the whole leading features of the Socinian
theology; and if we could bring out and estimate the notions
that float in the minds of the great body of irreligious and un-
godly men among professing Christians, who have never thought
seriously upon religious subjects, we would find that they just
constitute the germs, or radical principles, of Socinianism. Take
any one of the mass of irreligious men, who abound in professedly
Christian society around us, — a man, it may be, who has never
entertained any doubts of the truth of Christianity, who has never

186 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

thought seriously upon any religious subject, or attempted to form
a clear and definite conception upon any theological topic, — try to
probe a little the .vague notions which lie undeveloped in his mind
about the divine character, the natural state and condition of man,
and the way of attaining to ultimate happiness ; and if you can
get materials for forming any sort of estimate or conjecture as
to the notions or impressions upon these points that may have
spontaneously, and without effort, grown up in his mind, you will
certainly find that, without being aware of it, he is practically
and substantially a Socinian. The notions and impressions of
such men upon all religious subjects are of course very vague
and confused ; but it will commonly be found that, in their inmost
thoughts, — in the ordinary and spontaneous current of their im-
pressions, in so far as they have any, in regard to religion, — Christ
as the Saviour of sinners, and the atonement as the basis or ground
of salvation, are virtually shut out, or reduced to mere names or
unmeaning formulae ; that the Christian scheme, in so far as it is
taken into account, is viewed merely as a revelation or communi-
cation of some information about God and duty ; and that their
hopes of ultimate happiness, in so far as they can be said to have
any, are practically based upon what they themselves have done,
or can do, \dewed in connection with defective and erroneous con-
ceptions of the character and moral government of God, while a
definite conviction of the certainty of future punishment has no
place in their minds. Now this is, in substance, just the Socinian
system of theology ; and if these men were drawn out, so as to
be led to attempt to explain and defend the vague and confused
notions upon these subjects which had hitherto lurked undeveloped
in their minds, it would plainly appear — provided they had in-
telligence enough to trace somewhat the logical relation of ideas,
and courage enough to disregard the vague deference for the
obvious sense of Scripture, and for the general belief of Christian
churches, to which they had become habituated — that they were
obliged to have recourse to Socinian arguments as the only means
of defence ; unless, indeed, they should reach the higher intelli-
gence, or the greater courage, of openly rejecting Christianity
altogether, as teaching a system of doctrine irrational and absurd.
This is, I am persuaded, a correct account of the general
state of feeling and impression, in regard to religious subjects,
existing in the minds of the great body of the ignorant, unre-

Sec. in.] SOCINIAN SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY. 187

fleeting, and irreligious men around us, in professedly Christian
society; and if so, it goes far to prove that, while there is not
a great deal of open and avowed Socinianism maintained and
defended among us, yet that it exists to a large extent in a latent
and undeveloped form, and that it is the natural and spontaneous
product of the depraved, unrenewed heart of man, exhibiting its
natural tendencies in the formation of notions and impressions
about God and divine things, and the way of attaining to ulti-
mate happiness, which are not only unsanctioned by the revela-
tion which God Himself has given us in regard to these matters,
but are flatly opposed to it.

In these circumstances, it is perhaps rather a subject for sur-
prise that there should be so little of open and avowed Socinian-
ism among us ; and the explanation of it is probably to be found
in these considerations : — that in the existing condition of society
there are many strong influences and motives to restrain men
from throwing off a profession of a belief in Christianity ; — that
there obtains a strong sense of the impossibility, or great difficulty,
of effecting anything like an adjustment between the Socinian
system of theology, and the obvious meaning and general tenor of
Scripture ; — and that an attempt of this sort, which should possess
anything like plausibility, requires an amount of ingenuity and
information, as well as courage, which few comparatively possess.
It is in entire accordance with these general observations, that the
strain of preaching which prevailed in the Established Churches
of this country during the last century, — in the Church of
England during the whole century, and in the Church of Scot-
land during the latter half of it, — was in its whole scope and
tendency Socinian. It is admitted, indeed, that the great mass of
the clergy of both churches, during the period referred to, were
guiltless of any knowledge of theology, or of theological specula-
tions and controversies ; and that their preaching, in general, was
marked rather by the entire omission, than by the formal and
explicit denial, of the peculiar and fundamental doctrines of the
Christian system. Still this is quite sufficient to entitle us to call
their system of preaching Sotinian, as it left out the doctrines of
the natural guilt and depravity of man, — the divinity and atone-
ment of Christ, — justification by His righteousness, — and regene-
ration and sanctification by His Spirit; and addressed men as
if they were quite able, — without any satisfaction for their sins,

188 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

— without any renovation of their moral natures, — without any
special supernatural assistance, to do all that was necessary for
securing their eternal happiness, and needed only to be reminded
of what their duty was, and of the considerations that should in-
duce them to give some attention to the performance of it. And
we find likewise, as we might have expected, if the preceding ob-
servations are well founded, that whenever any man arose among
them who combined superior intelligence, information, and courage,
and who was led to attempt to explain and defend his views upon
religious subjects, he certainly, and as a matter of course, took
Socinian ground, and employed Socinian arguments.

Sec. 4. — Original and Recent Socinianism.

Before concluding this brief sketch of the Socinian system in
genera], viewed as a whole, it may be proper to advert to the
differences, in point of theological sentiment, between the original
and the modern Socinians. Those who, in modern times, have
adopted and maintained the great leading principles of the theo-
logical system taught by Socinus, commonly refuse to be called
by his name, and assume and claim to themselves the designation
of Unitarians, — a name which should no more be conceded to
them, than that of Catholic should be conceded to Papists, as it
implies, and is intended to imply, that they alone hold the doctrine
of the unity of God ; while, at the same time, it does not in the
least characterize their peculiar opinions as distinguished from
those of the Arians, and others who concur with them, in denying
the doctrine of the Trinity. They hold all the leading character-
istic principles of the system of theology originally developed and
compacted by Socinus; and therefore there is nothing unfair,
nothing inconsistent with the well-understood and reasonable
enough practice that ordinarily regulates the application of such
designations, in calling them Socinians. They are fond, however,
of pointing out the differences, in some respects, between their
views and those of the original Socinians, that they may thus lay
a plausible foundation for repudiating the name ; and it may be
useful briefly to notice the most important of these differences.

Socinus and his immediate followers displayed a great deal
of ingenuity and courage in devising and publishing a series of
plausible perversions of Scripture statements, for the purpose of

Sec. IV.] ORIGINAL AND RECENT SOCINIANISM. 189

excluding from the Bible the divinity and the satisfaction of
Christ ; but there were some of the views commonly entertained
by the orthodox, connected with these matters, which — though
tending rather to enhance our conceptions of the importance of
Christ and His work, viewed in relation to the salvation of sinners
— they had not sufficient ingenuity and courage to explain away
and reject. These were chiefly His miraculous conception ; His
having been literally in heaven before He commenced His public
ministry; His being invested after His resurrection with great
power and dignity, for the government of the world, — for the
accomplishment of the objects of His mission, and the final judg-
ment of men ; and His being entitled, on this ground, to adora-
tion and worship. Socinus and his immediate followers, though
certainly they were not lacking in ingenuity and boldness, and
though they could not but feel the inconsistency, at least, of the
adoration of Christ with the general scope and tendency of their
system, were unable to devise any plausible contrivance for ex-
cluding these doctrines from Scripture. The miraculous concep-
tion of Christ they admitted, but contended, and truly enough,
that this of itself did not 7iecessarili/ imjAy either His pre-existence,
or any properly superhuman dignity of nature. The texts which
so plainly assert or imply that He had been in heaven before He
entered upon His public ministry on earth, they could explain
only by fabricating the supposition that He was taken up to
heaven to receive instruction during the period of His forty days'
fast in the wilderness. And they were unable to comprehend how
man could profess to believe in the divine authority of the New
Testament, and yet deny that Christ is now invested with the
government of the world ; that He is exercising His power and
authority for promoting man's spiritual welfare ; that He is one
day to determine and judge their final destiny ; and that He is
entitled to their homage and adoration.

But modern Socinians have found out pretences for evading
or denying all these positions. They deny Christ's miraculous
conception, and maintain that He was the son of Joseph as well
as of Mary, mainly upon the ground of some frivolous pretences
for doubting the genuineness of the first two chapters both of
Matthew and Luke. Dr. Priestley admitted that he was not quite
satisfied with any interpretation of the texts that seem to assert
that Christ had been in heaven before He taught on earth ; but

190 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIIT.

he gravely assures us that, rather than admit His pre-existence,
he would adopt the exploded interpretation of the old Socinians,
or make any other supposition that might be necessary, however
absurd or offensive.* Mr. Belsham, while he admits that " Christ
is now alive, and employed in offices the most honourable and
benevolent," yet considers himself warranted in believing that
" we are totally ignorant of the place where He resides, and of the
occupations in which He is engaged ; " and that, therefore, " there
can be no proper foundation for religious addresses to Him, nor of
gratitude for favours now received, nor yet of confidence in His
future interposition in our behalf; "f while he contends that all
that is implied in the scriptural account of His judging the world,
is simply this, — that men's ultimate destiny is to be determined
by the application of the instructions and precepts which He
delivered when on earth. This was the state of completeness or
perfection to which Socinianism had attained in the last gene-
ration, or in the early part of this century. There was but one
step more which they could take in their descent, and this was the
entire adoption of the infidel anti-supernaturalism of the German
neologians ; and this step most of them, within these few years,
have taken, both in the United States and in this country. Pro-
fessor Moses Stuart of Andover, in his Letters to Dr. Channing,:J:
— a very valuable little work on the Trinity and the Divinity of
Christ, though not to be implicitly followed, — expressed, in 1819,
his apprehension that the Socinians, as soon as they became
acquainted with the writings of the German neologians, would
embrace their principles, would abandon their elaborate efforts to
pervert scriptural statements into an apparent accordance with
their views, and adopt the bolder course of openly rejecting the
doctrines taught by the apostles as erroneous, while still pretend-
ing, in some sense, to believe in the Chi'istian revelation. This
apprehension was speedily realized to a large extent in the United
States, and is now being realized in this country ; so that there
seems to be ground to expect that Socinianism proper, as a public
profession, will soon be wholly extinguished, and the pantheistic
infidelity of Germany, though under a sort of profession of Chris-
tianity, be substituted in its place. Perhaps it would be more

* Magee's Works^ vol. i. p. 59.

t Magec, vol. ii. p. 32 ; Bclshain, Calm Inquiry, pp. 326, 345.

t Letter v. pp. 134-5.

Sec. IV.] ORIGINAL AND RECENT SOCINIANISM. 191

correct to say that this has ah'eady taken place ; for we are not
aware that any of those amongst us who used to assume the de-
signation of Unitarians, now openly reject or oppose the panthe-
istic infidelity which is being so largely circulated in this country.
When this change began to show itself among the American
Socinians, it was avowedly advocated by themselves on the ground
of the necessity of having some system of religion more spiritual
and transcendental — more suited to the temperament and the
aspirings of an earnest age — than the dry, uninteresting intel-
lectualism of the old Socinians. It was with this view that they
had recourse to the pantheism and neology of Germany, which,
combining easily with a sort of mystical supersensualism, was
fitted to interest the feelings, and to bring into exercise the emo-
tional department of our nature. This is the sort of religion that
is now obtruded upon the more literary portion of our community
instead of the old Socinianism, which was addressed exclusively
to the understanding, and was fitted to exercise and gratify the
pride of human reason. It is well to know something of the
peculiar form and dress which error in religious matters assumes
in our own age and country ; but it may tend to guard us against
the deluding influence of transcendentalism in rehgion, if we are
satisfied — as a very little reflection may convince us — that, with a
considerable difference in its dress and garnishing, with a larger
infusion of Scripture phraseology, and with much more of an
apparent sense and feeling of the unseen and the infinite, it is
just, in its substance, the old Socinianism, both with re?pect to
the way and manner of knowing divine things, and with respect
to the actual knowledge of them obtained in this way. It does
not constitute an essential difference, that, instead of giving to
reason, or the understanding, a supremacy over revelation, and
making it the final immediate judge of all truth, the new system
extends this controlling power to man's whole nature, to his sus-
ceptibilities as well as his faculties, and assigns a large influence
in judging of divine things to his intuitions and emotions ; and
the vague and mystic style of contemplation in which it indulges
about God, and Christ, and eternity, does not prevent its actual
theological system from being fairly described as involving a
denial of the guilt and depravity of man, the divinity and atone-
ment of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit, and an assertion
of man's full capacity to work out for himself, without any satis-

192 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

faction for his sins, or any renovation of his moral nature, the
full enjoyment of God's favour, and the highest happiness of
which he is capable ; while the only point in which it does differ
essentially from the old Socinianism — namely, the denial of a
supernatural revelation, attested by real miracles, which are estab-
lished by satisfactory historical evidence — should remove at once
every feeling of doubt or difficulty about the propriety of de-
nouncing it as a system of open infidelity.

Sec. 5. — Distinction of Persons in the Godhead.

Though I have thought it of some importance to give a brief
sketch of Socinian theology in general, viewed as a system, and
embodying positive doctrines and not mere negations, in regard
to all the leading topics which are usually discussed in theological
systems, yet I do not mean to enter into anything like a detailed
examination and refutation of all the different doctrines of which
it is composed, but to confine myself to those with which, in popu-
lar apprehension, the name of Socinianism is usually associated,
— namely, the Trinity, and the person and atonement of Christ.
Their doctrines upon these points may be said to form the chief
peculiarities of the Socinians ; and their whole system of doctrine
is intimately connected with their views upon these subjects.
Besides, I have already had occasion to consider most of the other
branches of the Socinian system of theology under other heads, — as
in examining the Pelagian controversy, where we met with errors
and heresies, substantially the same as those taught by modern
Socinians, in regard to the natural character and capacities of man,
and the operation and influence of divine grace in preparing men
for the enjoyment of happiness; — and still more fully in examining
the Popish system of doctrine as contrasted with the theology of
the Eeformation. The Church of Rome teaches defective and
erroneous doctrines concerning the natural guilt and depravity of
man, his natural power or ability to do the will of God, regenera-
tion by the Holy Spirit, and everything connected with his justi-
fication, or the way and manner in which men individually obtain
or receive the forgiveness of sin and admission to the enjoyment
of God's favour, — although the formal Popish doctrine upon most
of these subjects is not so flatly and plainly opposed to the word
of God as that held upon the same points by Socinians, and even

Sec. v.] DISTINCTION OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 193

by many who have passed under the name of Arminians. But
as we then endeavoured not only to point out the errors of the
Church of Rome upon these topics, but also to explain and illus-
trate the true doctrines of Scripture respecting them, as taught by
the Reformers and laid down in our Confession of Faith, we have
said as much as is necessary for the purpose of exposing Pelagian
and Socinian errors regarding them. The subject of the Trinity
and the person of Christ we have also had occasion to consider, in
adverting to the Arian, Nestorian, and Eutychian controversies in
the fourth and fifth centuries. We have not, however, discussed
these doctrines so fully as their importance demands in some of
their general aspects ; and we propose now to devote some space
to an explanation of the way and manner in which these important
doctrines have been discussed in more modern times.

We proceed, then, to consider the doctrine of the distinction
of persons in the Godhead. This is commonly discussed in sys-
tems of theology under the head " De Deo^'' as it is a portion of
the information given us in Scripture with respect to the God-
head, or the divine nature ; and the knowledge of it is necessary,
if the commonly received doctrine be true, in order to our being
acquainted with the whole of what Scripture teaches us con-
cerning God. If there be such a distinction in the Godhead or
divine nature, as the received doctrine of the Trinity asserts, then
this distinction, as a reality, ought to enter into our conceptions of
God. We ought to be aware of its existence, — to understand it,
as far as we have the capacity and the means of doing so ; and we
ought to take it into account in forming our conception of God,
even independently of its connection wath the arrangements of the
scheme of redemption, though it is in these that it is most fully
unfolded, and that its nature and importance most clearly appear.

There are one or two obvious reflections, suggested by the
general nature and character of the subject, to which it may be
proper to advert, though it is not necessary to enlarge upon them.
The subject, from its very nature, not only relates immediately to
the infinite and incomprehensible Godhead, but concerns what
may b.e regarded as the penetralia or innermost recesses of the
divine nature, — the most recondite and inaccessible department of
all that we have ever learned or heard concerning God. It is a
subject about which reason or natural theology — ^in other words,
the works of nature and providence, with the exercise of our

3 — VOL. II. N

194 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

faculties upon them — give us no information, and about which
we know, and can hiow, nothing, except in so far as God Him-
self may have been pleased to give us a direct and immediate
revelation concerning it. These considerations are surely well
fitted to repress any tendency to indulge in presumptuous specu-
lations with respect to what may be true, or possible, or probable,
in regard to this profoundly mysterious subject ; and to constrain
us to preserve an attitude of profound humility, while we give
ourselves to the only process by which we can learn anything
with certainty regarding it, — namely, the careful study of God's
word, — anxious only to know what God has said about it, what
conceptions He intended to convey to us regarding it, — and ready
to receive with implicit submission whatever it shall appear that
He has declared or indicated upon the subject.

The way in which this question ought to be studied is by col-
lecting together all the statements in Scripture that seem to be in
any way connected with it, — that seem, or have been alleged, to
assert or to indicate some distinction in the Godhead or divine
nature, — to investigate carefully and accurately the precise mean-
ing of all these statements by the diligent and faithful application
of all the appropriate rules and materials, — to compare them with
each other, — to collect their joint or aggregate results, — and to
embody these results in propositions which may set forth accu-
rately the substance of all that Scripture really makes known to
us regarding it. It is only when we have gone through such a
process as this, that we can be said to have done full justice to
the question, — that we have really formed our views of it from
the word of God, the only source of knowledge respecting it, —
and that we can be regarded as fully qualified to defend the
opinions we may profess to entertain upon it.

The first point which we are naturally called upon to advert to
is the status qiiestionis, or what it is precisely that is respectively
asserted and maintained by the contending parties. And here we
may, in the first instance, view it simply as a question between
Trinitarians on the one side, and anti-Trinitarians on the other,
without any reference to the differences subsisting among the
various sections of the anti-Trinitarians, such as the Arians and
the Socinians, about the person of Christ. The substance of
what the supporters of the doctrine of the Trinity contend for is,
that in the unity of the Godhead there are three distinct persons,

Sec. v.] distinction OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 195

who all possess the divine nature or essence, and that these three
persons are not three Gods, but are the one God ; while the
doctrine maintained on the other side is, that the Scripture does
not reveal any such distinction in the divine nature, but that God
is one in person as well as in essence or substance ; and that the
divine nature, or true and proper divinity, is really possessed by
no person except by Him who is styled in Scripture the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now here, before going further, it is to be observed that
there is brought out an intelligible difference of opinion^ even
though the subject treated of be in its nature and bearings in-
comprehensible, and though we may not be able to give a precise
and exact definition of all the terms employed in the statement of
the proposition, — such as the word person in the application here
made of it. These two opposite propositions are at least intelli-
gible thus far, that we can form a pretty definite conception of
what is the general import of the affirmation and the negation
respectively, and can intelligently bring them both into contact
and comparison with the evidence adduced, so as to form a judg-
ment as to whether the affirmation or the negation ought to be
received as true. But the opponents of the doctrine of the
Trinity are accustomed to press us with the question, What do you
mean hy persotis, when you assert that there are three persons in
the unity of the Godhead ? Now the answer commonly given
to this question by the most judicious divines is this : First, they
maintain that they are not bound to give a precise and exact de-
finition of the word persons as here employed, — namely, in its
application to the divine nature, — since this is not necessary to
make the proposition so far intelligible as to admit of its being made
the subject of distinct argumentation, and having its truth or false-
hood determined by the examination of the appropriate evidence, —
a position this, which, though denied in words, is practically con-
ceded by our opponents, when they assert that they can prove from
Scripture that no such personal distinction as Trinitarians contend
for attaches to the divine nature. Secondly, they admit that they
cannot give a full and exact definition of the import of the word
persons, or of the idea of distinct personality, as predicated of the
divine nature; and can say little more about it than that it expresses
a distinction not identical with, but in some respects analogous to,
that subsisting among three different persons among men.

196 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

Many of the defenders of the doctruie of the Trinity, following
the example of the schoolmen, have indulged to a very great and
unwarrantable extent in definitions, explanations, and speculations
upon this mysterious and incomprehensible subject ; and these
attempts at definition and explanation have furnished great ad-
vantages to the opponents of the doctrine, — both because their
mere variety and inconsistency with each other threw an air of
uncertainty and insecurity around the whole doctrine with which
they were connected, and because many of them, taken singly,
afforded plausible, and sometimes even solid, grounds for objection.
Anti-Trinitarians, in consequence, have usually manifested some
annoyance and irritation when the defenders of the doctrine of the
Trinity took care to confine themselves, in their definitions and
explanations upon the subject, within the limits of what strict
logic required of them, and of what the Scriptures seemed to in-
dicate as the real state of the case, — the whole amount of what was
revealed regarding it. They have laboured to draw them out into
explanations and speculations upon points not revealed ; and with
this view have not scrupled to ridicule their caution, and to ascribe
it — as indeed Mr. Belsham * does expressly — to " an unworthy
fear of the result of these inquiries, and a secret suspicion that the
question will not bear examination." This allegation, however, is
really an unfair and unworthy artifice on his part. It is indeed
true, that one or two defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity, in
their just disapprobation of the extent to which some friends of
truth have carried their definitions and explanations upon the
subject, have leant somewhat to the opposite extreme, and mani-
fested an unnecessary and unreasonable shrinking even from the
use of terms and statements commonly employed and generally
sanctioned upon this point, as if afraid to speak about it in any
other terms than the ipsissima verba of Scripture. But nothing
of this sort applies to the great body of the more cautious defen-
ders of the doctrine of the Trinity. They do not pretend to know
anything upon this subject but what they find asserted or indicated
in Scripture. They aim at no other or higher object than just to
embody, in the most appropriate and accurate words which human
language furnishes, the substance of what Scripture teaches ; and
they are under no obligation to explain or defend anything but

* Calm Inquiry^ p. 529.

Sec. v.] distinction OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 197

what they themselves profess to liave found in Scripture, and only
in so far as they profess to find in Scripture materials for doing
so. They find the doctrine of the divine unity clearly taught in
Scripture, and therefore they receive this as a great truth which
they are bound and determined to maintain, resolved at the same
time to admit no doctrine which can be clearly demonstrated to
be necessarily contradictory to, or inconsistent with, the position
that God, the Creator and Governor of the world, the object of
religious worship, is one. But then they profess to find also
in Scripture, evidence that Christ is truly and properly God, a
possessor of the divine nature ; and that the Holy Ghost is also
God in the highest sense, and not a mere quality or attribute of
God. These two positions about Jesus Christ the Son of God,
and about the Holy Ghost, constitute the main and proper field
of controversial discussion, in so far as the investigation of the
precise meaning of scriptural statements is concerned ; but at
present, in considering the state of the question^ we must assume
that the Trinitarian doctrines upon these two points have been
established from Scripture ; for the discussion as to the state of
the question really turns substantially on this : Supposing these
positions about the Son and the Holy Ghost proved, as we be-
lieve them to be, in what way should the teaching of Scripture
upon these points be expressed and embodied, so as, when con-
joined with the Scripture doctrine of the divine unity (if they can
be combined), to bring out the ivhole doctrine which the Scrip-
ture teaches concerning the Godhead, or the divine nature? God
is one ; and therefore, if Christ be God, and if the Holy Ghost be
God, they must be, with the Father, in some sense the one Gody
and not separate or additional Gods.

This genieral consideration seems naturally to indicate or im-
ply, and of course to warrant, the position that, while there is
unity in the Godhead or divine nature, there is also in it, or
attaching to it, some distinction. But Scripture, by affording
materials for establishing these positions about the Son and the
Holy Ghost, enables us to go somewhat further in explaining or
developing this distinction. There is no indication in the Scrip-
tures that proper divinity, or the divine nature or essence, belongs
to, or is possessed by, any except the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost ; and therefore we say, in setting forth the substance
of what Scripture teaches, that the distinction in the Godhead is

198 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXIII.

a threefold distinction, or that there are three, and neither more
nor fewer, who are represented to us as having the divine nature,
or as possessed of proper divinity. Assuming it to be proved
that Christ is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, it seems
necessary, and therefore warrantable, if any expression is to be
given in human language to the doctrine thus revealed, to say
that there are three which possess the divine nature, and are the
one God.

It may indeed be contended that the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, though divinity is ascribed to them, are merely
three different names of one and the same object, and do not desig-
nate three realities which are in any respect different, except merely
in name or in verbal representation. And this is the doctrine which
commonly passes under the name of Sabellianism. But then it
is contended, on the other hand, that this does not come up to, or
correspond with, the representation which the Scripture gives us
of the nature and amount of the distinction subsisting in the God-
head or divine nature. It seems very manifest that, if we are to
submit our minds to the fair impressions of the scriptural repre-
sentations upon this subject, the distinction subsisting among the
three of whom proper divinity is predicated, is something more than
a nominal or verbal distinction, — that it is a reality, and not a mere
name, — and that it is set before us as analogous to the distinc-
tion subsisting among three men, or three human beings, to whom
we usually ascribe distinct personality; and as there is nothing
else ivithin the sphere of our knoioledge to which it is represented
as analogous or similar, we are constrained to say — if we are to
attempt to give any expression in language of the idea or impres-
sion which the scriptural representations upon the subject seem
plainly intended to make upon our minds — tliat in the unity of the
Godhead there is a personal distinction, — there are three persons.
And this, accordingly, is the form in which the doctrine of the
Trinity has been usually expressed. It is not intended by this
form of expression to indicate that the distinction represented as
subsisting among the three who are described as possessing the
divine nature, is the same as that subsisting among three persons
among men. On the contrary, the identity of the distinction in
the two cases is denied, as not being suitable to the divine nature,
and more especially as this would be inconsistent with the doc-
trine of the divine unity ; for as three distinct persons among men

Sec. v.] distinction OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 199

are three men, so, were the distinction in the Godhead held to be
identical with this, the three persons in the Godhead must be
three Gods. It is merely contended that the threefold distinction
in the Godhead is analogous or similar in some respects to the
distinction between three human persons ; and the ground of this
assertion is, that the scriptural representations upon the subject
convey to us such an idea or impression of this distinction sub-
sisting in the Godhead or divine nature, — that this language we
cannot but regard as making the nearest approach to expressing
it correctly,' — that, in fact, from the nature and necessities of the
case, we have not the capacity or the means of expressing or
describing it in any other way.

We cannot define or describe positively or particularly the
nature of the distinction subsisting among the three who are
represented as all possessing the divine nature, because, from the
necessity of the case, the nature of this distinction must be incom-
prehensible by us, and because God in His word has not given us
any materials for doing so. We just embody in human language
the substance of what the word of God indicates to us upon the
subject, — we profess to do nothing more, — and we are not called
upon to attempt more ; to do so, would be unwarrantable and sin-
ful presumption. We are called upon to conform our statements
as much as possible to what Scripture indicates, neither asserting
what Scripture does not teach, nor refusing to assert what it does
teach, — though ready not only to admit, but to point out precisely,
as far as Scripture affords us materials for doing so, the imperfec-
tion or defectiveness of the language which we may be obliged to
employ because we have no other ; and to apply, as far as our
powers of thought and the capacities of the language, which we
must employ in expressing our conceptions, admit of it, any
limitations or qualifications which Scripture may suggest in the
explanation of our statement. It is not from cowardice or timidity,
then, or in order to secure an unfair advantage in argument, as
our opponents allege, that we refuse to attempt definitions or
explanations in regard to the distinction which Scripture makes
known to us as subsisting, in combination with unity, in the
divine nature. We assert all that Scripture seems to us to sanc-
tion or to indicate ; and we not only are not bound, but we are
not warranted, to do more. We assert the unity of the God-
head. We asse^-t the existence of a threefold distinction in the

200 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

Godhead, or the possession of the divine nature and essence by-
three, — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and that these
three are represented to us in Scripture as distinguished from
each other in a manner analogous to the distinction subsisting
among three different persons among men. We express all this,
as it is expressed in our Confession of Faith, by saying that, " In
the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance,
power, and eternity, — God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost." This is the whole of what our Confession sets
forth as the doctrine of Scripture on the subject of the Trinity
in general, — for I omit at present any reference to the personal
properties by which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
are distinguished from each other, — and this is all which any
judicious supporter of the doctrine of the Trinity will consider
himself called upon to maintain or defend. All that he has to
do is just to show^ that Scripture, fairly and correctly interpreted,
warrants and requires him to assent to these positions ; and that
there is nothing in the clear deductions of reason, or in the teach-
ing of Scripture, either in its particular statements or in its
general assertion of the divine unity, which requires him to reject
any of them.

The reason why the opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity
are so anxious to draw its defenders into definitions and explana-
tions in regard to the precise nature of the distinction alleged to
subsist in the Godhead, is because they hope in this way to get
materials for involving them in difficulties and contradictions, —
for showing that the doctrine of the Trinity necessarily leads either
to Tritheism on the one hand, or to Sabellianism on the other, —
or, more generally, that it necessarily involves a contradiction, or
is inconsistent with the divine unity ; while the unwarrantable and
injudicious extent to which the friends of the doctrine have often
carried their attempts to define the nature of the distinction, and
to propound theories for the purpose of explaining the consistency
of the distinction with the unity, have afforded too good grounds
for the expectations which its opponents have cherished. Anti-
Trinitarians are fond of alleging that there is no intermediate posi-
tion between Tritheism and Sabellianism, — that is, between the
view which would introduce three Gods, and thereby flatly contra-
dict the doctrine of the divine unity, — and that which, in order to
preserve the unity unimpaired, would virtually explain away the

Sec. v.] distinction OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 201

distinction of persons, and make it merely nominal. And it cannot
be disputed, that some who have propounded theories in explana-
tion of the doctrine of the Trinity, have exhibited symptoms of
leaning to one or other of these sides, — have afforded some plau-
sible grounds for charging them with one or other of these errors.
Tritheism is of course a deadly and fundamental error, as it
contradicts the doctrine of the divine unity, and accordingly it has
scarcely ever been openly and formally taught ; but there have
been men who, entering into presumptuous speculations about
the nature of the distinction subsisting in the Godhead, and being
anxious to make this distinction clear and palpable, have been led
to lay down positions which could scarcely be said to come short
of asserting practically, to all intents and purposes, the existence of
three Gods. And as the enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity
usually allege that it involves or leads to Tritheism, they catch at
such representations as confirm this allegation. And when other
divines, leaning to the other extreme, and being more careful to
preserve the unity than the distinction, have so explained and re-
fined the distinction as to make it little if anything more than a
merely verbal or nominal one, — a tendency observable in the pre-
sent day in some of the best and soundest of the German divines,
such as Neander and Tholuck,* and of which there are also to be
found not obscure indications among ourselves, — then anti-Trini-
tarians allege, with some plausibility, that this is just abandoning
the doctrine of the Trinity, because, as they say, it cannot be
maintained. Indeed, Sabellianism, when it is really held, is con-
sistent enough both with Arianism and Socinianism ; for neither
the Arians, who believe Christ to be a superangelic creature, nor
the Socinians, who believe Him to be a mere man, need contend
much asrainst an alleo;ed nominal distinction in the divine nature,
as this does not necessarily exclude anything which their peculiar
opinions lead them to maintain ; and, accordingly, Mr. Belsham
says t that Sabellianism " differs only in words from proper Uni-
tarianism." Unitarians, indeed, are accustomed to distort and
misrepresent the views of Trinitarian divines, in order to have
more plausible grounds for charging them with a leaning either
to Tritheism or Sabellianism ; and Mr. Belsham formally classes

* Vide Knapp's Lectures on Cliris- I f Calm Inquiry, p. 504.
tian Theology, p. 142.

202 THE SOCINIAN CONTEOVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

the great body of the Trinitarians* under the two heads of
ReaHsts and Nominahsts, insinuating that the doctrine of the
first class is virtually Tritheistic, and that of the second virtually
Sabellian ; while it would be no difficult matter to show, in re-
gard to some of the most eminent divines whom he has put into
those opposite classes, that they did not really differ from each
other substantially in the views which they held upon this subject.
A good deal of controversy took place in England, in the end
of the seventeenth century, upon this particular aspect of the
question, — Dr. Wallis, an eminent mathematician, having pro-
pounded a theory or mode of explanation upon the subject, which
had somewhat the appearance of making the distinction of per-
sons merely nominal ; and Dean Sherlock, in opposing it, having
appeared to countenance such a distinction or division in the God-
head, as seemed to infringe upon the divine unity, and having
been, in consequence, censured by a decree of the University of
Oxford. Unitarians have ever since continued to represent this
decree as deciding in favour of Sabellianism, and thereby virtually
sanctioning Unitarianism, or being a denial of a real personal
distinction in the divine nature ; while the truth is, that though
both parties went into an extreme, by carrying their attempts at
explanation much too far, in different directions, — and were thus
led to make unwarrantable and dangerous statements, — they did
not differ from each other nearly so much as Unitarians com-
monly allege, and did not afford any sufficient ground for a
charge either of Tritheism or of Sabellianism. Neither party,
certainly, intended to assert anything different from, or incon-
sistent with, the scriptural doctrine laid down in the first of the
Thirty-nine Articles, that " in the unity of this Godhead there
be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, — the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; " though it would have
been much better had they confined themselves to an exposition
of the scriptural evidence in support of the specific positions
which make up, or are involved in, this general statement, and
restricted their more abstract speculations to the one precise and
definite object of merely bringing out what was indispensable to
show that none of the positions taught in Scripture, and embodied
in this general statement, could be proved necessarily to involve a

* P. 516. t Belsham's Calm Inquiry, p. 51.

Sec. VI.] TRINITY AND UNITY. 203

contradiction or a denial of the divine unity. The controversy
to which I have referred, engaged the attention and called forth
the energies of some very eminent men, — South supporting
Wallis, and Bingham, the author of the great work on Christian
Antiquities, defending Sherlock ; while two greater men than
any of these — namely, Stilhngfleet and Howe — may be said to
have moderated between the parties. This discussion afforded
a handle to the enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity at the
time, who made it the subject of a plausible pamphlet, entitled
Considerations on the different Explications of the Doctrine of the
Trinity* and it is still occasionally referred to by them with
some triumph ; but it seems, in its ultimate results, to have ex-
erted a wholesome influence upon the mode of conducting this
controversy, leading to more caution, wisdom, and judgment on
the part of the defenders of the truth, — a more careful absti-
nence from baseless and presumptuous theories and explanations,
— and a more uniform regard to the great principles and objects
which have just been stated, as those that ought to regulate the
exposition and investigation of this important subject.

Sec. 6. — Trinity and Unity.

The importance of attending carefully to the true and exact
state of the question in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity,
is fully evinced by this consideration, that the opponents of the
doctrine base, directly and immediately upon the state of the ques-
tion, a charge of its involving a contradiction, and of its being
inconsistent with the admitted truth of the unity of God. The
duty of Trinitarians, in regard to this subject of settling, so far as
they are concerned, the state of the question, ought to be regu-
lated by far higher considerations than those which originate in
a regard to the advantages that may result from it in contro-
versial discussion. The positions which we undertake to main-
tain and defend in the matter — and this, of course, settles the
state of the question in so far as we are concerned — should be
those only, and neither more nor less, which we believe to be
truly contained in, or certainly deducible from, the statements of

* This pamphlet is discussed in the Preface to Stillingfleet's Vindication of
(lie Doctrine of the Trinity.

204 THE SOCINIAN CONTEOVERSY. [Chap. XXIIT.

Scripture, — tliose only which the word of God seems to require
us to maintain and defend, without any intermixture of mere
human speculations or attempts, however ingenious and plausible,
at definitions, explanations, or theories, beyond what the Scripture
clearly sanctions or demands. The defenders of the doctrine of
the Trinity have often neglected or violated this rule, by indulg-
ing in unwarranted explanations and theories upon the subject,
and have thereby afforded great advantages to its opponents, of
which they have not been slow to avail themselves. And when,
warned of their error by the difficulties in which they found
themselves involved, and the advantages which their opponents,
who have generally been careful to act simply as defenders or
respondents, seemed in consequence to enjoy, they curtailed their
speculations within narrower limits, and adhered more closely to
the maintenance of scriptural positions, their opponents have re-
presented this as the effect of conscious weakness or of controver-
sial artifice. The truth, however, is, that this mode of procedure
is the intrinsically right course, which ought never to have been
departed from, — which they were bound to return to, from a sense
of imperative duty, and not merely from a regard to safety or
advantage, whenever, by any means, their deviation from it was
brought home to them, — and which it is not the less incumbent
upon us to adhere to, because the errors and excesses of former
defenders of the truth, and the advantages furnished by these
means to opponents, may have been, in some measure, the occa-
sion of leading theologians to see more clearly, and to pursue
more steadily, what was in itself, and on the ground of its own
intrinsic excellence, the undoubted path of duty in the matter.

But though anti-Trinitarians are much fonder of dealing with
the particular definitions, explanations, and theories of individual
theologians upon this subject, than with those general and well-
weighed statements which we have quoted both from the English
Articles and our own Confession of Faith, — and which certainly
contain the substance of all that Scripture teaches, and conse-
quently of all that we should undertake to maintain and defend,
— yet it must be acknowledged that they commonly allege that the
doctrine of the Trinity, even when most cautiously and carefully
stated, involves a contradiction in itself, and is inconsistent with the
doctrine of the divine unity ; and to this we would now advert.

It will be understood, from the exposition of principles formerly

Sec. VI.] TRINITY AND UNHTY. 205

given, that we do not deny that such allegations are relevant,
and that they must in some way or other be disposed of ; and it
will also be remembered that sufficient grounds have been ad-
duced for maintaining the two following positions upon this point:
First, that when the Scripture is admitted in any fair sense to be
the rule of faith, the first step should be simply to ascertain, in the
faithful and honest use of all appropriate means, what it teaches,
or was intended to teach, upon the subject, — that this investiga-
tion should be prosecuted fairly to its conclusion, without being
disturbed by the introduction of collateral considerations derived
from other sources, until a clear result is reached, — that an alle-
gation of intrinsic contradiction or of contrariety to known truth,
if adduced against the result as brought out in this way, should
be kept in its proper place as an objection^ and dealt with as such,
— that, if established, it should be fairly and honestly applied,
not to the effect of reversing the judgment, already adopted upon
competent and appropriate grounds, as to what it is that Sci'ip-
ture teaches (for that is irrational and illogical), but to the effect
of rejecting the divine authority of the Scriptures. Secondly, that
in conducting the latter part of the process of investigation above
described, we are entitled to argue upon the assumption that the
doctrine of the Trinity has been really established by scriptural
authority, — we are under no obligation to do more than simply
to show that the allegation of contradiction, or of inconsistency,
with other truths, has not been proved ; and we should attempt
nothing more than what is thus logically incumbent upon us.
As we are not called upon to enter into an exposition of the scrip-
tural evidence, we have no opportunity of applying the principles
laid down under the former of these two heads, though it is very
important that they should be remembered. It is chiefly by the
positions laid down in the second head that we must be guided in
considering this allegation of our opponents.

We assume, then, — as we are entitled, upon the principles ex-
plained, to do, in discussing this point, — that it has been established,
by satisfactory evidence, as a doctrine taught in Scripture, that
true and proper divinity is possessed by the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost ; that the divine nature and perfections are pos-
sessed by three ; and that, while there is only one God, and while
these three, therefore, are the one God, there is yet such a dis-
tinction among them, as is, in some respects^ analogous to the dis-

206 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

tinction subsisting between three persons among men, — such a
distinction as lays a foundation for attributing to each of them
some things which are not attributable to the others, and for
applying to them the distinct personal pronouns, I, Thou, and He.
This is the substance of what Scripture seems plainly to teach
upon the subject ; and we embody it in such statements as these,
just because we cannot possibly represent or express it in any
otlrer way. Now it is alleged that this doctrine — which, in the
meantime, we are entitled to assume, is taught in Scripture — in-
volves a contradiction in itself, and is inconsistent with the divine
unity; and upon the principles which have been explained, we
have merely to show that tJds allegation is not substantiated — is
not proved.

The first part of the allegation — namely, that the doctrine
directly and in itself involves a contradiction — is very easily dis-
posed of, as it is manifestly destitute of any solid foundation. In
order to constitute a contradiction, it is necessary that there be
both an affirmation and a negation, not only concerning the same
thing, but concerning the same thing in the same respect. To say
that one God is three Gods, or that three persons are one person,
is, of course, an express contradiction, or, as it is commonly called,
a contradiction in terms. To affirm, directly or by plain implica-
tion, that God is one in the same respect in which He is three,
would also amount to a plain contradiction, and, of course, could
not be rationally believed. But to assert that God is in one re-
spect one, and in another and different respect three, — that He is
one in nature, essence, or substance, — and that He is three with
respect to personality, or personal distinction (and this is all that
the received doctrine of the Trinity requires or implies), — can
never be shown to contain or involve a contradiction. It certainly
does not contain a contradiction in terms ; for we not only do not
assert, but expressly deny, that God is one and three in the same
respect, that He is one in the same respect in which He is three,
or that He is three in the same respect in which He is one ; and
when the defenders of the doctrine adhere, as they ought to do,
to a simple assertion of what they believe to be taught or indi-
cated in Scripture, and of what is declared in our symbolical
books, without indulgijig in unwarranted explanations and base-
less theories, it is impossible to show that the doctrine involves,
by necessary implication, any appearance of a contradiction.

Sec. VI.] TRINITY AND UNITY. 207

Accordingly, the opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity are
more disposed to dwell upon the other part of the allegation, —
namely, that it is inconsistent with the known and admitted truth
of the divine unity ; and it is chiefly by pressing this position, that
they have succeeded in drawing the supporters of the doctrine
into the field of explanations and theories, directed to the object
of making, in some measure, intelligible how it is that unity and
personal distinction — unity in one respect and trinity in another
— are consistent with each other. The temptation to attempt
this is, to ingenious men, somewhat strong; but the result^ of
the attempts which have been made have always, in consequence
of the limited amount of the information which God has been
pleased to reveal to us upon the subject, dnd the imperfection of
the human faculties and of human language, proved wholly un-
successful in effecting anything really substantial and valuable ;
and have commonly been attended only with mischief, as serving
to furnish plausible grounds to opponents to allege, either that, to
adopt the language of the Athanasian creed, we confound the
persons, or divide the substance, — that is, fall, or seem to fall, into
the opposite extremes of Sabellianisra or Tritheism.

Of course very different measures of wisdom and caution have
been exhibited by different defenders of the Trinity in the exposi-
tion and application of these explanations and theories, illustra-
tions and analogies, which they have brought to bear upon this
subject. They have been propounded with some diversity of spirit,
and they have been applied to different purposes. Sometimes they
have been put forth boldly, dogmatically, and recklessly ; and at
other times with much more modesty, diffidence, and circumspec-
tion. Sometimes they have been urged as if they afforded positive
proofs, or at least strong presumptions, of the truth of the doctrine
of the Trinity, or of the combination of nnity and distinction which
it implies, and sometimes they have been adduced merely as afford-
ing proofs or presumptions of its possibility ; while at other times,
again, they have been brought forward, not as proofs or presump-
tions of anything, but merely as illustrations of what it was that
was meant to be asserted. When applied to the last of these
purposes, and used merely as illustrations of what is meant, there
is no great harm done, provided they are restricted carefully to
this purpose. When adduced for the first of these purposes, —
namely, as presumptions or proofs of the truth of the doctrine, —

208 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

this, from the nature of the case, can lead only to baseless and
presumptuous speculation.

But even when applied only to the second of these purposes,
— namely, to afford proofs or presumptions of possibility, — ^they
ought to be regarded as unnecessary, unsafe, and inexpedient.
Strictly speaking, we are not bound to produce positive proof even
of the possibility of such a combination of unity and distinction
as the doctrine of the Trinity predicates of the divine nature, but
merely to show negatively that the impossibility of it, alleged upon
the other side, has not been established ; and the whole history
of the controversy shows the great practical importance of our
restricting ourselves within the limits beyond which the rules of
strict reasoning do not lequire us to advance. The only question
which we will ever consent to discuss with our opponents upon
this point — apart, of course, from the investigation of the meaning
of Scripture — is this : Has it been clearly proved that the received
doctrine of the Trinity, as set forth in our symbolical books, neces-
sarily involves anything inconsistent with the unity of the God-
head ? And there need be no hesitation in answering this question
in the negative. No proof of the allegation has been produced
resting upon a firm and solid basis, — no argument that can be
shown to be logically connected with any principles of which we
have clear and adequate ideas. It is the divine nature — the
nature of the infinite and incomprehensible God — which the ques-
tion respects ; and on this ground there is the strongest presump-
tion against the warrantableness of positive assertions on the part
of men as to what is possible or impossible in the matter. The
substance of the allegation of our opponents is, that it is impos-
sible that there can be such a distinction in the divine nature as
the doctrine of the Trinity asserts, because God is one ; and they
must establish this position by making out a clear and certain
bond of connection between the admitted unity of God and the
impossibility of the distinction asserted. The substance of what
we maintain upon the point is this, — that every attempt to estab-
lish this logical bond of connection, involves the use of positions
which cannot be proved ; and which cannot be proved, just be-
cause they assume a larger amount of clear and certain know-
ledge, both with respect to the unity and the distinction, than men
possess, or have the capacity and the means of attaining.

The unity of the Godhead or divine nature being universally

Sec. VI.] TRINITY AND UNITY. 209

admitted, men are very apt to suppose that they understand it
fully, — that they know more of what it means and implies than
they do. But the unity of the Godhead is really as incomprehen-
sible by men as any of His other attributes, — a position confirmed
and illustrated by the fact, that it is doubtful whether the proper
nature and ground of the divine unity can, in any strict and
proper sense, be ascertained and established by natural reason.
There has been a very general sense, among the greatest men who
have discussed this subject, of the difficulty of establishing the
strict and proper unity of the Godhead on mere rational grounds,
apart from revelation. It has generally been regarded, indeed,
as easy enough to establish that there is one Being (and not more)
who is the actual Creator and Governor of the world ; but it has
commonly been felt to be somewhat difficult to deduce certainly,
from anything cognizable by the natural faculties of man, a pro-
position asserting unity, in any definite sense, of the Godhead, or
divine nature, intrinsically, and as such. And this fact is fitted
to show us that it is not so easy to comprehend what the divine
unity is, or implies, as it might at first sight appear to be. The
Scriptures plainly declare the divine unity by informing us, not
merely that the world was created, and has ever been governed,
by one Being, but that the Godhead, or divine nature, is essen-
tially one. But they give us no detailed or specific information
as to the nature and grounds of this unity, — as to what it consists
in ; and of course they afford us no definite materials for determin-
ing what is, and what is not, consistent with it. And if it be true,
as we are entitled at present to assume, that the same revelation
which alone certainly makes known to us the strict and proper
unity of the divine nature, does also reveal to us a certain distinc-
tion existing in that nature, the fair inference is, — that the unity
and the distinction are quite consistent with each other, though
we may not be able to make this consistency palpable either to
ourselves or others.

It is scarcely alleged, though it is sometimes insinuated, by
our opponents, that the admitted unity of the divine nature
necessarily excludes all distinctions of every kind and degree.
It is very manifest, in general, from the nature of the case, —
the exhalted and incomprehensible character of the subject, and
the scanty amount of information which God has been pleased
to communicate to us regarding it, or which, perhaps, we were
3 — VOL. II. O

210 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIIT.

capable of receiving, — that we have no very adequate or certain
materials for determining positively, in any case, that any par-
ticular alleged distinction is inconsistent with the divine unity ;
and, in these circumstances, mid under these conditions^ the posi-
tion of our opponents is, and must be, that they undertake to
prove that the particular distinction implied in the doctrine of
the Trinity is inconsistent with the unity of God. Now, if the
scriptural doctrine were to be identified with the explanations
and theories about it which have been sometimes propounded by
its friends, it might be admitted that considerations have been
adduced, in support of the alleged inconsistency, that were pos-
sessed not only of plausibility, but of weight ; but against the
doctrine itself, as taught in Scripture and as set forth in our
standards, nothing of real weight has been, or can be, adduced, —
nothing but arguments ab ignorantia and ad ignorantiam. We
profess to give no further explanation of the nature of the
distinction, except this, that it is set before us in Scripture as
a real, and not a merely nominal distinction, — a distinction of
existences and objects, and not of mere names and manifesta-
tions,— and as analogous in some respects, though not in all,
to the distinction subsisting between three persons among men ;
and there is nothing in any one of these ideas to which a definite
argument, clearly inferring incompatibility with unity, can be
shpwn to be logically attachable. It would be no difficult matter
to show — but it is not worth while — that the attempts which
have been made to establish such a connection, either, in the
first place, proceed upon certain conceptions of the precise nature
of the distinction of persons, which we disclaim, and are under
no sort of obligation to admit ; or, secondly, resolve into vague
and general assertions on points which are beyond our cognizance
and comprehension, and on which it seems equally unwarrant-
able and presumptuous to affirm or deny ahything ; or, thirdly
and finally, are reducible to the extravagant position, more or
less openly asserted and maintained, that the divine unity neces-
sarily excludes all distinction, of every kind, and in every degree.
The steady application of these general considerations to the
actual attempts which have been made by anti-Trinitarians to
prove that the doctrine of the Trinity necessarily involves what
is inconsistent with the divine unity, will easily enable us to see
that they have not proved their position. And here we should rest,

Sec. VI.] TRINITY AND UNITY. 211

relying for the positive proof of all that we believe and maintain,
upon the authority of God in His word, — revealing Himself to
us, — making known to us concerning Himself what we could
not know in any measure from any other source, or by any other
means, but an immediate supernatural revelation. The doctrine
is above reason ; it could not have been discovered by it, and can-
not be fully comprehended by it, even after it has been revealed ;
but it cannot be proved to be contrary to reason, or to be incon-
sistent with any other truth which, from any source, we know
regarding God. We can, of course, form no definite or adequate
conception of this mysterious distinction attaching to the divine
nature ; but we have no reason to expect that we should, — we
have every reason to expect that we should not^ since we have no
definite or adequate conceptions of many other things about God,
even though tliese things are discoverable, in some measure, by
the exercise of our natural faculties. We find great, or rather
insuperable, difficulties in attempting to explain, in words, the
nature of this distinction in the Godhead ; because, independently
of the very inadequate conceptions which alone we could form of
such a subject from the nature of the case, it has, of necessity,
been made known to us, in so far as we do know it, through the
imperfect medium of human language, and by means of repre-
sentations which are necessarily derived from what takes place
or is realized among men, and must therefore very imperfectly
apply to the divine nature. In this, as well as in other matters
connected with God, we must exclude from our conceptions
everything that results from, or savours of, the peculiar qualities
of man's finite and dependent nature, and admit nothing into
our conceptions inconsistent with the known perfections and pro-
perties of God; while at the same time we must take care to
exclude nothing which He has really made known to us con-
cerning Himself, on the ground of our not being able fully to
comprehend how it is, that all the truths which He has made
known to us concerning Himself can be combined in Him. He
has revealed to us that He is one^ but He has also revealed to us
that there are three who have true and proper divinity, — who have
the divine nature and perfections. We, in consequence, maintain
that, in the unity of the Godhead — in the common possession of
the one undivided and indivisible divine nature — there are three
persons ; and without meaning to assert — nay, while expressly

212 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY, [Chap. XXIII.

denying — that the idea of distinct personality apphes to the divine
nature in the same sense as to the human, we use this mode of
expression, because it is really the only way in which we can
embody the idea, which scriptural statements convey to us, of the
distinction existing in the Godhead, — namely, as being analogous
in some respects to the distinction subsisting among three different
persons among men, — an idea, however, to be always regulated
and controlled by the principle, that the three to whom divinity
is ascribed, though called persons, because we have no other
expressions that would convey any portion of the idea which
Scripture sets before us on the subject, are not three Gods, — as
three persons among men are three men, — but are the one God.

It may perhaps be supposed, that though, upon principles
formerly explained, Trinitarians are not obliged to give any full
or exact definition of what they mean by persons, or by distinct
personality, as predicated of the divine nature, when they merely
lay down the general position, that in the unity of the Godhead
there are three persons, yet that they are bound to attempt some-
thing more precise or specific in defining or describing personality,
when they lay down the position that the Holy Ghost is a person,
since the idea of personality is in this position more distinctly held
up, as the precise point to be established. Now it is true, that the
proof that the Holy Ghost is a person, is a fundamental point in
the proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is scarcely disputed
that the Holy Ghost is God, is divine; the main controversy
turns upon the question of His personality, which is usually denied
by anti-Trinitarians. But the personality of the Spirit can be
proved satisfactorily by appropriate evidence, without our being
under the necessity of giving any exact definition of what person-
ality means, as applied to the divine nature. It is to be observed,
that the discussion about the personality of the Spirit necessarily
involves the maintenance of one or other of two alternatives,
which really exhaust the subject. The Holy Spirit either is a
mere attribute or power of God, or is a distinct person from the
Father and the Son. Now we can form a pretty definite concep-
tion of the general import of these two opposite or alternative
propositions, without needing or being able to define precisely
and positively wherein the idea of distinct personality, as applied
to the divine nature, differs from the same idea as applied to the
liuman nature, — so far, at least, as to be able intelligently to esti-

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 213

mate the bearing and the weight of the evidence adduced for and
against them respectively. Upon this state of the question, without
any exact or adequate idea of personality, we are able to adduce
satisfactory evidence from Scripture, that the Holy Ghost is not
a mere power or attribute of God, or to disprove one of the
alternative positions. And this of itself is warrant enough for
maintaining the truth of the other, which is the only alternativ^e,
especially as it holds generally of a large portion of our knowledge
of God, that we approximate to an accurate statement of what we
know of Him chiefly by negatives ; while, at the same time, the
scriptural evidence, which proves that the Spirit is not a mere
power or attribute, manifestly brings Him before our minds,
viewed in His relations to the Father and the Son, in an aspect
analogous in some respects to the idea we entertain of the relation
subsisting between distinct persons among men ; and this warrants
the application of the idea, — of course with the necessary modi-
fication,— and also of the phraseology of distinct personality.

Sec. 7. — Evidence for the Divinity of Christ.

I have endeavoured, in what has been said upon the subject
of the Trinity, to guard against the tendency to indulge in un-
warranted definitions, explanations, and theories upon this topic,
— a tendency which too many of the defenders of the truth have
exhibited, — by pointing out not only its inexpediency and danger,
so far as mere controversial objects are concerned, but its un-
warrantableness and impropriety, on higher grounds, as a matter
of duty. I have attempted to mark out precisely the extent to
which the supporters of the doctrine of the Trinity are called
upon, in strict reasoning, to go, in the discussion of abstract
points connected with this matter ; and have, I think, rigidly con-
fined my own observations upon it within the limits thus defined.
But still I have some apprehension that, since I am not to enter
into a detailed examination of the scriptural evidence in support
of the doctrine, the prominence which lias been given to abstract
discussions regarding it, may convey an erroneous impression
of the comparative importance of the different departments of
inquiry that constitute a full investigation of the subject, and
may lead some to overlook the paramount, the supreme import-
ance of making themselves acquainted with the scriptural evi-

214 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIIT.

dence of tlie different positions, which may be said to constitute
the doctrine, as it is generally received amongst us. On this
account, I wish again to advert to the considerations, that this
doctrine is one of pure revelation ; that we know, and can know,
nothing about the distinction in the divine nature which it asserts,
except what is taught us in the sacred Scriptures ; and that the
first step that ought to be taken in a full investigation of the
subject, should be to collect the scriptural statements which bear
upon it, — to examine carefully their meaning and import, — and
then to embody the substance of the different positions thus
ascertained, as constituting the doctrine which we believe and
maintain upon the subject. The doctrine which we believe and
maintain should be reached or got at in this way ; and the
materials by which we defend it should be all derived from this
source. We should hold nothing upon the subject which is not
taught in Scripture; and we should be so familiar with the
scriptural grounds of all that we profess to believe regarding it,
as to be able to defend, from the word of God, the whole of what
we believe, against all who may assail it. I have already made
some general observations upon the Socinian method of inter-
preting Scripture, and given a warning against some of the
general plausibilities by which they usually endeavour to defend
their system against the force of scriptural arguments, and to
obscure or diminish the strength of the support which Scripture
gives to the scheme of doctrine that has been generally main-
tained in the Christian church ; and on the subject of the Scrip-
ture evidence, I can now only make a few observations of a
similar kind, bearing more immediately upon the doctrine of the
Trinity, and directed, not to the object of stating, illustrating,
and enforcing the evidence itself, but merely suggesting some
considerations that may be useful in the study of it.

The great fundamental position which we assert and under-
take to prove from Scripture is this, — that true and proper divi-
nity is ascribed to, that the divine nature is possessed by, three,
— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the basis or
foundation, or rather, it is the sum and substance, of the doctrine
of the Trinity ; and everything, of course, depends upon the
establishment of this position. The deity of the Father is not a
matter of controversy ; it is universally admitted. The question,
so far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, turns, as I have already

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 215

explained, more upon His personality than upon His divinity ;
for that the Spirit is God, in the highest sense, or is truly divine,
is scarcely disputed. For these and other reasons, the main field
of controversial discussion on this whole subject of the Trinity,
has been the true and proper divinity of the Son, — that is, of
Jesus Ciirist the Saviour of sinners. Of course all the general
objections usually adduced against the docti'ine of the Trinity,
apply in all their force to the ascription of proper Godhead, or of
the divine nature, to any person but the Father ; so that, when
the divinity of the Son is ])roved, all further controversy about
the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit, so far as these
general topics are concerned^ is practically at an end. When a
plurality of divine persons has been established, all the leading
general points on which anti-Trinitarians insist are virtually nega-
tived, and excluded from the field. If it be proved that there is
more than one person in the Godhead, there can be no general
reason why there should not be a third ; and it is on this account
that the investigation of the proper scriptural evidence in regard
to the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit has been usually
somewhat less disturbed by extraneous and collateral considera-
tions, by allegations of the impossibility of the doctrine contended
for being true, and by violent efforts at perversion which these
allegations were thought to justify, than the investigation into
the scriptural evidence for the divinity of the Son.

But while the divinity of Jesus Christ has thus become, per-
haps, the principal battle-field on this whole question, and while,
therefore, the evidence bearing upon it ouglit to be examined
with peculiar care, it is right to remark that Trinitarians profess
to find evidence in Scripture bearing directly upon the doctrine
of the Trinity in general, — that is, bearing generally upon a
])larality, and, more particularly, upon a trinity of persons in the
Godhead, independently of the specific evidence for the divinity of
Jesus Christ, and the divinity and pei'sonality of the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, it is common in writers who enter fully into the discus-
sion of this subject, to divide the scriptural evidence in support
of the doctrine of the Trinity into two heads : first, that derived
from passages which appear to intimate a plurality of persons in
the Godhead, and from those which seem to speak of the three
persons together, or in conjunction ; and, secondly, that derived
from passages which are alleged to assert or imply the divinity

216 THE SOCINIAN CONTEOVERSY. [Chap. XXIIT.

of Christ, and the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit, —
the second of these heads comprising much the larger amount of
scriptural materials. The principal thing in the Bible which has
been regarded by many as intimating a plurality of persons in
the Godhead in general, without conveying to us any further or
more definite information upon the subject, is the frequent use
in the Old Testament of the plural appellation, as it is called,
Elohim, or Aleim, the ordinary name of God, used in the plural
form, and joined with nouns and verbs in the singular. Some
Trinitarians have disclaimed any assistance from this branch of
evidence, explaining the peculiarity by what they call the plural
of majesty or excellence; while others, and among the rest Dr.
John Pye Smith, — who commonly leans to the extreme of caution,
and is very careful to put no more weight upon a proof than it is
clearly and certainly able to bear, — have, with apparently better
reason, been of opinion that this singular construction has some
real weight in the proof of the doctrine of the Trinity ; or, as
Dr. Smith says, that " this peculiarity of idiom originated in a
design to intimate a plurality in the nature of the One God ;
and that thus, in connection with other circumstances calculated
to suggest the same conception, it was intended to excite and
prepare the minds of men for the more full declaration of this
unsearchable mystery, which should in proper time be granted."*
The chief proofs which are usually adduced in support of
three distinct persons, or in which the three persons of the God-
head appear to be spoken of together, or in conjunction, and yet
are distinguished from each other, are the formula of baptism
and the apostolic benediction, as they are commonly called (for
most Trinitarians now admit that there is a decided preponder-
ance of critical evidence against the genuineness of 1 John v. 7,
usually spoken of as the three heavenly witnesses). And here,
too, there has been some difference of opinion among Trinita-
rians as to the weight (jf the evidence furnished by the passages
referred to, — some thinking that these passages by themselves
do not furnish what can be properly called a proof, a distinct
and independent proof, of the doctrine, but only a presumption ;
and that, after it has been proved by a clearer and more con-

* Scripture Testimony, vol. i. pp. 483, 484 ; Hopkins' Primitive Creed
Examined and Explained, pp. 321-337.

Sec. VIL] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 217

elusive evidence that the Son is God, and that the Holj Spirit
is possessed of divinity and personality, these passages may be
regarded as corroborating the conclusion, and confirming the
general mass of evidence ; while others are of opinion — and, I
think, upon sufficient grounds — that the language employed
upon these occasions, — the manner and circumstances in which
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are there conjoined, —
are plainly fitted, and should therefore be lield as having been
intended, to convey to us the idea that the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, and that they are
possessed of equal power and dignity, or, in other words, that
they equally possess the same divine nature.

Still, the difference of opinion that has been exhibited by
Trinitarians as to the validity and sufficiency of these proofs of
the doctrine of the Trinity in general, has concurred with other
causes formerly mentioned, in bringing about the result that the
controversy has usually turned mainly upon the passages of Scrip-
ture classed under the second head, as those which are regarded
as establishing the true and proper divinity of Jesus Christ and
of the Holy Spirit, and especially of Jesus Christ. All the sup-
porters of the doctrine of the Trinity of course profess, and under-
take to prove from Scripture, that Jesus Christ is truly and
properly divine, — that He is God, not in any secondary or subor-
dinate, but in the proper and highest, sense ; and is thus, equally
with the Father, a possessor of the one divine nature or substance ;
and they have agreed harmoniously, in the main, in selecting,
classifying, and applying the varied and abundant scriptural evi-
dence by which this great truth is established. They have been
in the habit of classifying the evidence under four heads, and
there is probably no better mode of classifying it.

First, The proof from Scripture that divine names and titles
are applied to Christ ; and under this head the points to be estab-
lished are these two : first, that names and titles are ascribed to
Christ which are exclusively appropriated to the one true God ;
and, secondly, that names and titles are applied to Christ which,
though not exclusively appropriated to the one true God, and
sometimes applied to creatures in a secondary and subordinate
sense, are yet applied to Christ in such circumstances, in such
a manner, and with such accompanying adjuncts, as to furnish
evidence that the Scriptures were fitted, and of course intended,

218 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

to impress upon us the conviction that tliey apply to Christ in a
sense in which they do not, and cannot, apply to any creature, —
in the same sense in which they are applied to the Father.

Secondly, The proof that divine qualities and attributes, such
as omnipotence and omniscience, are ascribed to Christ ; attri-
butes which manifestly cannot belong to any finite or created
being, and must be exclusively appropriated to the divine nature,
— to the one true God.

Thirdly, The proof that acts, or works, are ascribed to Christ,
which are not competent to any finite or created being ; and which
require or imply the possession and exercise of divine perfections
and prerogatives, — such as the creation and government of the
world, and the determining the everlasting destinies of men.

Fourthly, The proof that Christ is entitled to divine worship
and homage, to the adoration and the confidence, the submission
and the obedience, which creatures ought to give to their Creator,
and to none else, and which are claimed in Scripture as due
exclusively to the one true God.

Any one of these departments of proof, when really established
by a careful investigation of the precise meaning and import of
particular statements, would be sufficient to settle the question of
the true and proper divinity of Christ ; but when each and all of
these positions can be established, as has been often proved, by
various and abundant scriptural evidence, — formal and incidental,
palpable and recondite, — by many passages of all different degrees
of clearness and explicitness, — by many proofs, corroborated by
innumerable presumptions, there is presented a mass of evidence
which, it is not to be wondered at, has satisfied the great body of
those who, in any age, have investigated the subject, and have
assumed the name of Jesus, — that He whom they call their Lord
and Master is indeed God over all, blessed for evermore.

Of course the establishment of each of these four leading
positions concerning Christ, depends wholly upon the particular
scriptural evidence adduced in support of it, — upon the result of
a careful examination of the precise meaning and import of par-
ticular statements contained in Scripture, — upon the proof that
can be adduced that there are statements contained in Scripture
wliich, when investigated in the fair and honest application of all
the principles and rules of sound interpretation, bring out, as the
general result, that if the Scriptures were fitted and designed to

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 219

be our rule of faith, it was then wished, intended, and expected
that we should believe all this concerning Jesus Christ.

All the various scriptural statements which have been adduced
in support of these positions concerning Christ, have been made
the subjects of controversial discussion. It has been contended
by Socinians, that there is nothing in Scripture which, rightly
interpreted, furnishes sufficient or satisfactory evidence that Jesus
Christ had any existence until He was born in Bethlehem, — that
lie had any other nature than the human, — that He was anything
more than a mere man ; and it has been contended by Arians,
that while Christ existed in a higher nature than the human be-
fore the creation of the world. He still belonged to the class of
creatures, — that He is called God only in a secondary or subordi-
nate sense, — and is not possessed of true and proper divinity, — is
not a possessor of the one divine nature ; and both these parties
have exerted themselves to clear away the scriptural evidence
adduced in support of Christ's proper divinity. The Arians, in-
deed, join with the Trinitarians in proving, against the Socinians,
that there are scriptural statements which clearly and certainly
prove that Jesus Christ existed before the creation of the world,
and was possessed of a nature higher and more exalted than the
human. And in giving a detailed and digested exposition of
tlie Scripture evidence concerning Christ, it is perhaps best and
most expedient to begin with establishing those positions which
Arians concur with us in holding in opposition to the Socinians,
by proving Christ's pre-existence and superhuman dignity ; and
then, abandoning the Arians, to proceed to the proof that He had
a nature not only superhuman, but truly and properly divine, by
adducing and expounding the evidence of the four leading posi-
tions regarding Him formerly stated. But, of course, the proof
of His true and proper divinity shuts out at once not only Socini-
anism, but all the various gradations of Arianism, as it necessarily
implies tliat He was, as our Confession of Faith says, " of one
substance, power, and eternity with the Father." And the gene-
ral features of the method of disposing of the Scripture evidence
for the divinity of Christ, to wiiich alone we can here advert, are
substantially the same, in the case of all the different classes of
anti-Trinitarians.

I need not add anything to the general observations formerly
made about the Socinian practice, usually followed also by the

220 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIIL

Arians, of mixing up the general objections to the doctrine upon
abstract grounds, with the investigation of the proper meaning of
scriptural statements, — of insisting that the doctrine, if true, would
have been more frequently mentioned and more clearly asserted,
— and of demanding that we shall prove, in regard to the scriptural
passages we adduce, not only that they may, but that they must^
bear the meaning we assign to them, and cannot possibly admit of
any other. All these different features of the method they em-
ploy, which they lay down beforehand as general principles, are
directed to one single object, — namely, to diminish a little the
amount of torture which it may be necessary to apply to particular
scriptural statements, with the view of showing that they do not
furnish any satisfactory evidence for Christ's divinity. It is evi-
dent that, if these general principles were conceded to them in all
the latitude of construction which they commonly put upon them,
a smaller amount of perverting power would be necessary to make
out a plausible case in support of the positions they maintain.
They are pretty distinctly conscious that it is necessary for them
to subject scriptural statements to a considerable amount of pres-
sure, in order to distort and pervert them to such an extent, as
that they shall appear to give no very certain sound in support of
Christ's divinity ; and as they are aware that this is rather apt
to disgust honest men, they are naturally solicitous to do with as
little of it as they can. It was evidently with this view that they
devised tliose principles of interpretation to which we have re-
ferred ; for if these be well founded, a smaller amount of dis-
tortion and perversion will be necessary for accomplishing their
object. It is enough to remember, upon the other side, that all
that we are called upon to do in order to establish the doctrine
of Christ's divinity, is just to show that Scripture, fairly and
lionestly explained, according to the recognised principles and rules
of sound interpretation, does teach^ and was intended to teach it.

The opponents of Christ's divinity, after having attempted by
these general considerations to make provision for effecting their
object with the minimum of perversion, proceed to the work of
showing, minutely and in detail, that the scriptural statements
we adduce do not teach, or at least do not necessarily teach, the
doctrine of Christ's divinity. They are not unfrequently some-
what skilled in the technicalities and minutiae of biblical criticism ;
and some of them have manifested very considerable ingenuity in

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 221

applying all these to the object they have in view, which may be
said to be, in general, to involve the meaning of scriptural state-
ments in obscurity, — to show that no certain meaning can be
brought out of them, — and, more particularly, that it is not by
any means clear or certain that they bear the meaning which
Trinitarians assign to them. I cannot enter into any detail of
the various methods they have employed for this purpose. I may
merely mention a specimen.

One very common course they adopt is, to break down a
statement into its separate words, phrases, and clauses, and then
to try to get up some evidence that the particular words, phrases,
or clauses, or some of them, have been employed in some other
passages of Scripture in a somewhat different sense from that
in which Trinitarians understand them in the passage under con-
sideration ; and then they usually reckon this — aided, of course,
by an insinuation of the impossibility or incredibility of the doc-
trine of their opponents — as sufficient ground for maintaining
that there is nothing in the passage to support it ; while, in such
cases, Trinitarians have undertaken to prove, and have proved,
either that the words, phrases, or clauses are never used in Scrip-
ture in the sense which Socinians and Arians would ascribe to
them; or that, even though this sense might be, in certain circum-
stances, admissible, yet that it is precluded, in the passage under
consideration, by a fair application to it of the acknowledged rules
of grammar, philology, and exegesis; and that these rules, fairly
applied to the whole passage, viewed in connection with the con-
text, establish that the Trinitarian interpretation brings out its
true meaning and import. The great leading impression which
the Socinian mode of dealing with the Scripture evidence for the
divinity of Christ is fitted to produce in the minds of those who
may be somewhat influenced by it, and may thus have become dis-
posed to regard it with favour, is this, — that most of the passages
which they may have been accustomed to regard as evidences of
Christ's divinity, have been so dealt with singly and separately as
to be neutralized or withdrawn, to be thrown into the background,
or taken out of the way; so that, while there is much in Scripture,
as Socinians admit, which would no doubt concur and harmonize
with the Trinitarian view, if that view were once established, yet
that there are few, if any, passages which seem to afford a clear
and positive proof of it, and that thus the foundation is taken

222 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

away, and the whole superstructure, of course, must fall to the
ground. This is the impression which is sometimes apt to be
produced when we read a plausible Socinian commentary upon
the scriptural statements adduced in support of Christ's divinity,
and find that every one of them has been tampered with, with
more or less plausibility, and that a great variety of considerations
have been suggested, wearing a critical aspect, and all tending to
render the Trinitarian interpretation of them uncertain or pre-
carious. Now the considerations that ought to be applied to
counteract this impression, are chiefly these two : —

First, There are some passages of Scripture under each of the
four leading divisions of the proof which cannot be explained
away without a manifest violation of the recognised principles of
interpretation ; and these constitute a firm and stable foundation,
on which the whole mass of cumulative and corroborating evidence
may securely rest. Trinitarians, of course, do not maintain that
all the Scripture passages usually adduced in support of Christ's
divinity are equally clear and explicit, — are equally unassailable
by objections and presumptions ; and they do not deny that there
are some which, taken by themselves, and apart from the rest,
might admit of being explained away, or understood in a different
sense. All the defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity do not
attach the same weight to all the different passages commonly
adduced as proofs of it ; and some discrimination and knowledge
of the subject are necessary in fixing, amid the huge mass of
evidence, upon the true dicta probantia, the real proof passages, —
those which, after all the arts and appliances of Socinian criticism
have been brought to bear upon them, can be really shown to
have successfully resisted all their attempts, and to stand, after
the most searching application of the principles of sound interpre-
tation, as impregnable bulwarks of Christ's divinity, — as manifestly
intended to teach us that He is indeed the true God, the mighty
God, Jehovah of hosts. There is a considerable number of such
passages both in the Old and the New Testaments. They must
necessarily constitute the main strength of the case ; and no man
can consider himself thoroughly versant in this subject, until,
after having surveyed the whole evidence commonly adduced in
the discussion, he has made up his own mind, as the result of
careful study and meditation, as to ivhat the passages are which
of themselves afford clear and conclusive proof of Christ's divinity,

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 223

as distinguished from those whicli are rather corroborative than
jDrobative ; and has made himself famihar with those exegetical
principles and materials, by the application of whicli the true
meaning of these passages may be brought out and established,
and all the common Socinian glosses and attempts at perverting
or neutralizing them may be exposed.

Secondly, the full and complete evidence for Christ's divinity
is brought out only by a survey of the lohole of the scriptural
materials which bear upon this subject. Socinians are in the
habit of assailing each text singly and separately, and labour to
convey the impression that they have succeeded conclusively in
disposing of all the proofs one by one; while they usually strive to
keep in the background, and to conceal from view, the evidence in
its entireness and completeness. It is of course quite right and
necessary that every Scripture text adduced should be subjected
to a careful and deliberate examination, and that its real meaning
and import should be correctly ascertained. It is also necessary,
as we have explained under the last head, that we should be pre-
pared, in maintaining our doctrine, with particular texts, which,
taken singly and of themselves, afford conclusive proofs of the
truth. But it is not right that the entire discussion should be re-
stricted to the examination of particular texts, without this being
accompanied and followed by a general survey of the whole evi-
dence, taken complexly and in the mass. When the Socinians
have only a single text to deal with, they can usually get up
something more or less plausible to involve its meaning in ob-
scurity or uncertainty ; but when their denial of Christ's divinity
is brought into contact with the full blaze of the whole word of
God, as it bears upon this subject, it then appears in all its gross
deformity and palpable falsehood^ There is perhaps no more con-
clusive and satisfactory way of bringing out and establishing the
divinity of Christ, than just to collect together, and to read over in
combination, a considerable number of the passages of Scripture
which speak of Him, and then to call on men to submit their
understandings, honestly and unreservedly, to the fair impression
of the views of Christ which are thus brought before them, and
to put to themselves the simple question : Is it possible that the
Bible could really have been fitted and designed to be our rule of
faith, if these statements about Christ, taken in combination, were
not intended to teach us, and to constrain us to believe, that He is

224 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

the one true and supreme God, possessed of the divine nature, and
of all divine perfections? A minute and careful examination of
the precise import and bearing of scriptural statements, will bring
out a great deal of evidence in support of Christ's divinity that is
not very obvious at first sight, — will show that this great doctrine
is interwoven with the whole texture of revelation, and that the
more direct and palpable proof is corroborated by evidence, pos-
sessed, indeed, of different degrees of strength in the different
portions of which it is composed, but all combining to place this
great doctrine upon an immoveable foundation ; but there is
nothing better fitted to assure the mind, to impress the under-
standing and the heart, to satisfy us that we are not following a
cunningly-devised fable, when we rely upon Him as an almighty
Saviour, and confide in the infinity of His perfections, than just
to peruse the plain statements of God's word regarding Him,
and to submit our minds honestly and unreservedly to the impres-
sions which they are manifestly fitted and intended to produce.
We should take care, then, while giving a due measure of time
and attention to the exact and critical investigation of the precise
meaning of particular texts, to contemplate also the evidence of
Christ's divinity in its fulness and completeness, that we may see
the more clearly, and feel the more deeply, the whole of what God
has revealed to us concerning His Son.

There is one other general observation which I wish to make
in regard to the study of this subject. It will be found occasion-
ally, in perusing works written in vindication of Christ's divinity,
that some texts which are founded on by one author as proofs of
the doctrine, are regarded by another as affording only a pre-
sumption of its truth, and perhaps by a third as having no bear-
ing upon the question ; and this fact suggests the consideration,
that there are two different and opposite tendencies upon this
subject, both of which ought to be guarded against. The one is,
that of pertinacity in adhering to everything that has ever been
adduced as a proof or argument, though it may not be able to
stand a searching critical investigation ; and the other is, that of
undue facility in giving up, as inconclusive or irrelevant, argu-
ments that really are possessed of some weight and relevancy.
Both of these tendencies have been manifested by the defenders
of the truth, and both of them operate injuriously. Some men
seem to think that it is nothing less than treachery to the doctrine

Sec. VTI.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 225

itself, to doubt the validity of any arguments that have ever at
any time been brought forward in support of it ; while others,
again, seem to think that they manifest a more than ordinary
skill in biblical criticism, and a larger measure of candour and
liberality, in abandoning some posts which Trinitarians have com-
monly defended. Of course no general rule can be laid down for
the regulation of this subject ; for the only rule applicable to the
matter is, that every man is bound, by the most solemn obligations,
to use the utmost impartiality, care, and diligence, to ascertain the
true and correct meaning and import of everything contained
in the word of God. It is enough to point out these tendencies
and dangers, and exhort men to guard carefully against being
misled or perverted by either of them ; while they should judge
charitably of those who may seem not to have escaped wholly un-
injured by them, provided they have given no sufficient reason to
doubt (for, in some instances, the second of these tendencies has
been carried so far as to afford reasonable ground for suspicion on
this point) that they are honest and cordial friends of the great
doctrine itself. There is enough of scriptural evidence for the
doctrine of the supreme divinity of our blessed Saviour, — evidence
that has ever stood, and will ever stand, the most searching critical
investigation, — to satisfy all its supporters that there is no temp-
tation whatever to deviate from the strictest impartiality in the
investigation of the meaning of scriptural statements, — no reason
why they should pertinaciously contend for the validity of every
atom of proof that has ever been adduced in support of it, or
hesitate about abandoning any argument that cannot be shown
to stand the test of a searching application of all the sound prin-
ciples both of criticism and exegesis.

The doctrine of the divinity of Christ is a peculiarly interest-
ing topic of investigation, both from the intrinsic importance of
the subject, and its intimate connection with the whole scheme of
revealed truth, and from the way and manner in which the in-
vestigation has been, and of course must be, conducted. There
is perhaps no doctrine of Scripture which has called forth a larger
amount of discussion, — the whole evidence about which has been
more thoroughly sifted ; there is none which has been more
vigorously and perseveringly attacked, — none which has been
more triumphantly defended and more conclusively established.
Viewed simply as a subject of theological discussion, apart from

3 — VOL. II. P

226 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXITT.

its practical importance, this doctrine perhaps presents fully as
much to interest and attract as any other that has been made a
subject of controversy.

The evidence bearing upon it extends nearly over the whole
Bible, — the Old Testament as well as the New ; for a great deal
of evidence has been produced from the Old Testament, that the
Messiah promised to the fathers was a possessor of the divine
nature, of divine perfections and prerogatives, and fully entitled
to have applied to Him the incommunicable name of Jehovah.
A great deal of learning and ability have been brought to bear
upon the discussion of this question, both in establishing the
truth, and in labouring to undermine and overthrow it. All the
resources of minute criticism have been applied to the subject,
and to everything that seemed to bear upon it ; materials of all
different kinds, and from all various sources, have been heaped
up in the investigation of it. The discussion thus presents a sort
of compendium of the whole science and art of biblical criticism,
in the widest sense of the word, — the settling of the true text, in
some important passages, by an examination of various readings,
— the philological investigation of the true meaning of a con-
siderable number of important words, — the application of gram-
matical and exegetical principles and rules to a great number of
phrases, clauses, and sentences. All this is comprehended in a
full discussion of the subject of our Lord's proper divinity. And
there is perhaps no one doctrine to the disproof or overthrow of
which materials of these different kinds, and from these various
sources, have been more skilfully and perseveringly applied, —
none in regard to which, by a better, and sounder, and more
effective application of the same materials, a more certain and
decisive victory has been gained for the cause of truth. Every
point has been contested, and contested with some skill and
vigour ; but this has only made the establishment of the truth, in
the ultimate result, the more palpable and the more undoubted.

For these reasons I have always been inclined to think, in
opposition to some views put forth by Dr. Chalmers,* that it is
very desirable that a pretty full investigation of the subject of
the Trinity and the divinity of Christ should come in at an early
period in the study of the system of Christian theology. The

• Preface to his Collected Works, vol. i. pp. iv., etc. — Edrs.

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 227

study of this subject leads to the consideration and application
of many important principles, both of a more general and com-
prehensive, and of a more minute and special kind, intimately
connected with the investigation of divine truth, and the critical
interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, and is thus fitted to teach
important lessons that bear upon the whole field of theological
discussion. To the humble and honest reader of God's word, the
divinity of the Saviour seems to be very plainly and fully taught
there ; and when men are first brought into contact with Socinian
perversions, they are apt, if they have not previously studied the
subject critically, to be startled with the plausibility attaching to
some of their attempts to involve the evidences of the doctrine,
or at least the precise meaning of some particular passages of
Scripture, in doubt and uncertainty. On this account, it is all
the more satisfactory in itself, and all the better fitted to suggest
useful lessons of general application, to find, as the result of a
more thorough and searching investigation, and of the most
stringent application of the recognised rules of critical inquiry,
that our first and most natural impressions of the meaning and
import of scriptural statements are fully confirmed and conclu-
sively established, — that the criticism, the learning, and the inge-
nuity of opponents are met and overborne, on the part of the
advocates of the truth, by all these qualities in a much superior
degree, — and thus to be brought deliberately and rationally to the
conclusion, that what has been in all ages the faith of the humbly
devout, though not learned and critical, readers of God's word,
is indeed its true meaning, and can be satisfactorily established in
all its parts by the highest learning, and the most accomplished
and searching criticism.

One leading consideration that ought to be kept in view in
the investigation of the scriptural evidence bearing on this sub-
ject is this, — that the object to be aimed at is to find out, from an
examination of the whole word of God, what it is that He wished
and intended us to believe regarding it. The Scriptures are
manifestly not constructed upon the principle of giving us, in
formal general statements, or in single passages, the substance of
what they are designed to teach us upon any particular topic.
It was manifestly God'-s design, in the construction of His word,
that men, in using it for the purpose which it was intended to
serve, should be called upon to exercise diligence and research in

228 THE SOCTNIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

collecting and combining the scattered rays of light, possessed of
different degrees of intensity, that bear upon any particular point,
and in estimating from the combination of the whole the real
character, complexion, and position of the object presented. This
consideration is fitted to impress upon our minds the unreason-
ableness and unfairness of selecting a few particular statements,
— laying them down as a basis or foundation, — and then setting
ourselves to pervert or explain away all other statements which,
at first view, it may not seem very easy to. reconcile with those
we may have thought proper to select as our favourites, in place
of investigating all fairly and impartially, — ascertaining the com-
bined result of all that the Bible has stated or indicated upon the
subject, — and then dealing with this result in one or other of the
only two ways which can be regarded as in any sense rational in
such a case, namely, either submitting implicitly to the doctrine
as revealed by God, or else rejecting wholly the revelation which
contains it.

In accordance with this' view, it is proper to give prominence
to this general consideration, which ought ever to be remembered
and applied, — namely, that Socinian and Arian doctrines, in regard
to the Trinity and the person of Christ, are founded only upon
a partial selection of scriptural statements, to the neglect and
disregard, or rather, what is much worse, to the perversion and
distortion, of many others ; while the orthodox doctrine exhibits
accurately and fully the combined result of all, giving to every
class of scriptural statements its true and fair meaning and its
right place ; and by this very quality or circumstance is proved
to be the true key for interpreting Scripture, and solving all the
difficulties that may occur in the investigation of its various state-
ments. That Jesus Christ is a man, a true and real man, — that
He had a true body, and a reasonable or rational soul, — is a doc-
trine clearly taught in Scripture, because it is manifestly implied
in, and absolutely indispensable to, a fair and honest interpreta-
tion of many of its statements ; and it is accordingly held by ail
who call themselves Christians, by Trinitarians as well as by
Socinians and Arians. But there are also passages which, when
fairly interpreted, afford satisfactory evidence that Jesus Christ
existed, and was in heaven, before He was born at Bethlehem,
and before the creation of the world ; and that in this state of
pre-existence He possessed a superhuman nature, — a nature

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 229

higher and more exalted than that in which He presented Him-
self to men while upon earth. Now all such statements the
Socinians refuse to take into account, in forming their concep-
tions or in settling their general doctrines about Christ ; and
they labour to vindicate their conduct in doing so, by exerting
their utmost ingenuity in distorting and perverting their mean-
ing, in order to make out some plausible grounds for alleging
that they convey no such ideas as have been commonly deduced
from them, and as they seem very evidently fitted to convey.

The Arians agree with us in holding, in opposition to the So-
cinians, that those passages do prove the pre-existence and super-
human dignity of Christ ; and accordingly they admit these addi-
tional ideas — additional, I mean, to that of His mere humanity —
into their doctrine concerning Him. But here they stop ; and
this is stopping short — far short — of the whole of what Scripture
teaches us regardinrj Him, for it still leaves Him in the class of
creatures. And we assert, and undertake to prove, that, in addition
to those passages which prove His pre-existence and superhuman
dignity, — and which perhaps, taken by themselves, prove nothing
more, — there are many passages which cannot be fairly and impar-
tially investigated according to the strictest principles of criticism,
without constraining men to believe that they were intended to
represent to us Christ as possessed of true and proper divinity,
— a possessor of the one divine nature, with all divine perfections
and prerogatives. Of course, upon this ground, we insist that the
Arian account of Christ, though fuller and more accurate than the
Socinian, is yet fundamentally defective ; and we maintain that,
in order to express and embody the substance of all that Scripture
teaches us concerning Him, we must hold that He existed not
merely before the creation of the world, but from eternity, — not
only in the possession of a superhuman, but of the one properly
divine nature. This doctrine, and this alone, comes up to the
full import of what is taught or indicated in Scripture concerning
Him. When any part of it is left out or denied, then there are
some scriptural statements — more or less few, of course, according
to the extent of the omission or negation — to which torture must
be applied, in order to show that they do not express the ideas
which they seem plainly fitted and intended to convey ; whereas,
when this great doctrine is admitted in all its extent, the whole
demands of Scripture are satisfied, — no distortion or perversion

230 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

is required, — and there is the full satisfaction of having investi-
gated fairly and honestly everything that God has said to us upon
the subject, and of having implicitly submitted our understand-
ings to His authority. What a mass of confusion and incon-
sistency the Bible presents, — how thoroughly unfitted is it to be
the standard or directory of our faith, — if it be indeed true that
Christ was a mere man, and that the Bible was intended to teach
us this ; whereas, if we admit and apply the orthodox doctrine
that He was God and man in one person, then order and consist-
ency at once appear, — difficulties are solvedj otherwise insoluble,
— apparent contradictions are removed, — and the whole body of
the scriptural statements concerning Him are seen to be in entire
harmony with each other, and to concur, all without force or
straining, in forming one consistent and harmonious whole.

The same general consideration may be applied to other points
comprehended in the doctrine commonly received upon this sub-
ject. Take, for instance, the personality of the Holy Spirit. It
cannot be disputed that there are passages of Scripture which
speak of the Spirit of God, and which contain, taken by them-
selves, no sufficient evidence of distinct personality. But if men
rest here, and upon this ground deny that the Spirit is a dis-
tinct person in the Godhead, then they are refusing to take into
account, and to receive in their fair and legitimate import, other
passages in which the idea of distinct personality is clearly indi-
cated, and which cannot, without great and unwarrantable strain-
ing, be interpreted so as to exclude or omit it. The same prin-
ciple applies to the' denial of Christ's eternal Sonship by those who
admit His true and proper divinity. By admitting His true and
proper divinity, they interpret rightly a large number of the
scriptural statements regarding Him, which Socinians and Arians
distort and pervert ; and they receive what must be admitted to
be most essential and fundamental truth in the scriptural views
of Christ. But still, as we believe, they come short of what
Scripture teaches concerning Him, by refusing to admit that,
even as God, He is the Son of the Father, — that there existed
from eternity a relation between the first and second persons of
the Godhead, analogous in some respects to that subsisting be-
tween a father and a son among men ; and we are persuaded that
there are passages in Scripture to which a considerable amount
of straining must be applied in order to exclude this idea.

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHEIST. 231

The Scripture, however, was evidently constructed upon the
principle not only of requiring, and tlierehy testing, men's dili-
gence and impartiality in collecting and examining, in taking into
account and applying, the whole of the materials which it fur-
nishes, for regulating our judgment upon any particular point ;
but likewise upon the principle of requiring, and thereby testing,
their real candour and love of truth, by providing only reasonable
and satisfactory, and not overwhelming, evidence of the doctrines
it was designed to teach. The peculiar doctrines of Christianity
are not set forth in Scripture in such a way as to constrain the
immediate assent of all who read its words, and are in some sense
capable of understanding them ; they are not there set forth in
such a way as at once to preclude all difference of opinion and all
cavilling, or to bid defiance to all attempts at distorting and per-
verting its statements. In short, startling as the position may at
first sight appear, there is not one of the peculiar doctrines of
the Christian system which is set forth in Scripture with such an
amount of explicitness, and with such overwhelming evidence, as
it was abstractly possible to have given to the statement and the
proof of it, or in such a way as to deprive men who are averse to
the reception of its doctrines, of all plausible pretences for ex-
plaining away and perverting its statements, even while admit-
ting their divine authority. No sane man ever doubted that the
Nicene Creed and the Westminster Confession teach, and were
intended to teach, by those who framed them, the true and proper
divinity of the Son. But many men, to whom we cannot deny
the possession of mental sanity, while we cannot but regard them
as labouring under some ruinously perverting influences, have
denied that the Scripture teaches this doctrine ; they have argued
strenuously in support of this denial, and have been able to pro-
duce some considerations in favour of their views, which are not
altogether destitute of plausibility.

The explanation of this is, that Scripture was constructed
upon the principle of testing our candour and love of truth,
by leaving some opening for men who had little or no candour
or love of truth rejecting the doctrines it was designed to teach,
without either formally denying its authority, or openly re-
nouncing all claim to sense or rationality, by advocating views
in support of which nothing that was possessed even of plausi-
bility could be alleged. The doctrine of the divinity of the

232 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXIII.

Son, in common with all the other peculiar doctrines of the
Christian system, is set forth in Scripture with a force of evi-
dence amply sufficient to satisfy every candid man — every man
who really desires to know the truth, to know what God has
revealed regarding it — with such evidence as that the rejection
of it, of itself, proves the existence and operation of a sinful
state of mind, of a hatred of truth, and imposes a fearful re-
sponsibility ; but not with such evidence as at once to secure and
compel the assent of all who look at it, and to cut off the possi-
biHty of the assignation of some plausible grounds for rejecting
it when men are led, by their dislike of the doctrine, and what
it implies, to reject it. God is fully warranted in requiring us to
believe whatever He has revealed, and accompanied with suffi-
cient evidence of its truth, and to punish us for refusing our
assent in these circumstances ; and it is in accordance with the
genera] principles of His moral administration, to test or try men
by giving them evidence of what He wishes and requires them to
believe, that is amply sufficient, without being necessarily over-
whelming,— that shall certainly satisfy all who examine it with
candour and a real desire to know the truth, — and that may leave
in ignorance and error those who do not bring these qualities to
the investigation.

The Socinians would demand for the proof of Christ's divinity
a kind and amount of evidence that is altogether unreasonable.
We formerly had occasion, in considering the general principles
on which Socinians proceed in the interpretation of Scripture, to
expose the unreasonableness of their demand, that we must show
that the scriptural statements which we produce in support of our
doctrines, not only may^ but must^ bear the meaning we ascribe to
them, and cannot possibly admit of any other. We acknowledge,
indeed, that it is not enough for us to show that Scripture state-
ments may bear the meaning we attach to them ; and we contend
that there are statements about Christ of which it might be
fairly said that they must bear our sense, and cannot possibly —
that is, consistently with the principles of sound criticism and the
dictates of common sense — admit of any other. But we do not
acknowledge that the establishment of this second position is indis-
pensable to making out our case, for there is a medium between
the two extremes, — of proving merely, on the one hand, that
certain statements may possibly admit of the meaning we ascribe

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 233

to them ; and, on the other hand, proving that they cannot pos-
sibly admit of any other meaning. This intermediate position is
this, — that upon a fair examination of the statements, and an
impartial application to them of the recognised principles and
rules of interpretation, we have sufficient materials for satisfying
ourselves, and for convincing others, that this, and not anything
different from It, is their true meaning, — the meaning which It Is
right and proper, if we would act uprightly and Impartially, to
ascribe to them. This Is enough. This should satisfy reasonable
and candid men. This fully warrants us to maintain, as it affords
us sufficient materials to prove, that this is the meaning which
they were intended to bear, — that these are the Ideas which they
were intended to convey to us. It must of course be assumed,
in all such Investigations, that the one object to be aimed at is
to ascertain the true meaning of Scripture, — the meaning which
the words bear, and were Intended to bear. When this Is once
ascertained, we have what we are bound to regard as the doctrine
which the Author of Scripture wished, intended, and expected us
to adopt upon His authority. It must further be assumed that
the words were intended to convey to us the meaning which
they are fitted to convey ; so that the inquiry is virtually limited
to this : What is the meaning which these words, in themselves
and In their connection, are fitted to convey to us, when fairly
and Impartially investigated by the recognised rules of philology,
grammar, and criticism, as they apply to this matter ?

The results brought out in this way we are bound to receive
as exhibiting the true, real, and intended meaning of Scripture,
and to deal with them accordingly. Cases may occur in which
we may not be able to reach any very certain conclusion as to
the true meaning of a particular statement, — In which, of several
senses that may be' suggested, we may, after examining the
matter, be at a loss to decide which Is the true meaning, — that Is,
we may not be able to attain to more than probability upon the
point. There are such statements in Scripture, and of course
they must be dealt with honestly, according to their true cha-
racter, and the real evidence of the case, as it fairly applies to
them. But these statements are very few, and comparatively
unimportant. We can, In general. In the fair, diligent, and per-
severing use of appropriate materials, attain to a clear conviction
as to what the true meaning of scriptural statements is, — what Is

234 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

the sense which they are fitted, and of course intended, to con-
vey to us; and this we should regard as settling the question,
and satisfying our judgment, even though there may remain
some ground for cavilling, — something not altogether destitute of
plausibility that might be alleged in favour of the possibility of
their bearing a different sense. In regard to the Trinity and the
divinity of Christ, the evidence is full, complete, and conclusive,
that the Scriptures are fitted to teach us these doctrines, — to con-
vey to us, to impress upon us, the ideas that constitute them ; and
of course that the Author of the Scriptures intended and expected,
nay, demands at our peril, that we shall believe upon His authority,
that " in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one
substance, power, and eternity, — God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost ; and that God the Son became man."
We conclude with a few remarks upon the importance of this
doctrine, and the responsibility connected with the admission or
denial of it. When we reflect upon the fulness and clearness with
which the divinity of Christ — which, as we formerly explained,
may be said practically to carry with it the whole doctrine of the
Trinity — is revealed to us in Scripture, we cannot regard those
who refuse to receive it in any other light than as men who have
determined that they will not submit their understandings to the
revelation which God has given us. They are refusing to receive
the record which He has given us concerning Himself and con-
cerning His Son, in its substance and fundamental features ; and
they are doing so under the influence of motives and tendencies
which manifestly imply determined rebellion against God's autho-
rity, and which would effectually lead them to reject any revela-
tion He might give that did not harmonize with their fancies and
inclinations. It is evident from the nature of the case, and from
the statements of Scripture, that the doctrines of the Trinity
and the divinity of Christ are of essential and fundamental im-
portance in the Christian scheme. Whether we view the gospel
theoretically, as a system of doctrines intended to enlighten our
understandings in the knowledge of God and of divine things, or
more practically, as intended to bear upon the formation of the
character and the regulation of the motives of men, the admission
or denial of the doctrine of three distinct persons in the unity of
the Godhead, and of the union of the divine and human natures
in the one person of Christ, must evidently affect fundamentally

Sec. VII.] EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 235

its whole character and influtence. To the second person in the
Godhead is assigned the work of satisfying divine justice, and of
reconciling us to God; and to the third person is assigned the
work of renewing our moral natures, and preparing us for the
enjoyment of happiness. And God has made our enjoyment of
the blessings of salvation dependent upon our knowing something
of the nature of these blessings, and of the way and manner in
which they have been procured and are bestowed.

If the Son and the Holy Ghost are not truly divine, — par-
takers of the one divine nature, — we are guilty of idolatry in
bestowing upon them divine honours ; and if they are divine, we
are, in refusing to pay them divine honours, robbing God of what
is due to Him, and of what He is demanding of us. Christ has
Himself uttered this most solemn and impressive declaration, "that
God hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that (in order
that, or with a view to secure that) all men might honour the
Son, even as they honour the Father ; " where we are plainly
enjoined to give the same honour to the Son as to the Father,
and where the injunction is sanctioned by an express assertion of
the certainty of its bearing upon the proceedings of the day of
judgment, and the decision then to be pronounced upon our
eternal destinies. What, indeed, is Christianity without a divine
Saviour ? In what essential respect does it differ, if Christ was a
mere man, or even a creature, from Mahommedanism, or from
the mere light of nature ? How can two systems of doctrine, or
two provisions for accomplishing any moral object, have the same
influence and result, which are, and must be, so different, so oppo-
site in their fundamental views and arrangements, as the doctrines
maintained by the advocates and opponents of Christ's proper
Godhead. Accordingly, it has held universally, that according as
men admitted or denied the divinity of Christ, have their whole
notions about the gospel method of salvation been affected. On
the divinity of Christ are evidently suspended the doctrine of
atonement, or satisfaction for sin, and the whole method of justi-
fication ; in short, everything that bears most vitally upon men's
eternal welfare. Our Saviour Himself has expressly declared,
"It is eternal life to know Thee (addressing His Father), the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent," * — a state-

* John xvii. 3.

236 THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXIII.

ment which does not prove, as anti-Trinitarians allege, that the
Father is the only true God, to the exclusion of the Son, because
this is not necessarily involved in it, and because to interpret
it in this way would make Scripture contradict itself, as in
another passage it expressly calls Jesus Christ the true God and
eternal life,* and affoi^ds us most abundant materials for believ-
ing that He is so ; but wliich does prove that a knowledge of
Jesus Christ must consist in the perception, the maintenance,
and the application of the real views regarding Him, which are
actually taught in the sacred Scriptures, — in knowing Him as
He is there revealed, — and in cherishing towards Him all those
feelings, and discharging towards Him all those duties, which the
scriptural representations of His nature and person are fitted to
produce or to impose. This is eternal life ; and the men who,
having in their hands the record which God has given con-
cerning His Son, refuse to honour Him, even as they honour
the Father, — to pay Him divine honour, as being a possessor of
the divine nature, — and to confide in Him, as a divine and
almighty Saviour, — must be regarded as judging themselves
unworthy of this eternal life, as deliberately casting it away from
them.

* 1 John V. 20.

CHAPTER XXIV.

DOCTEINE OF THE ATONEMENT.

The incarnation of the second person of the Godhead, — the as-
sumption of human nature by One who from eternity had pos-
sessed the divine nature, so that he was God and man in one per-
son,— is, as a subject of contemplation, well fitted to call forth the
profoundest reverence, and to excite the strongest emotions ; and
if it was indeed a reality, must have been intended to accomplish
most important results. If Christ really was God and man in one
person, we may expect to find, in the object thus presented to our
contemplation, much that is mysterious, — much that we cannot
fully comprehend ; while we should also be stirred up to examine
with the utmost care everything that has been revealed to us re-
garding it, assured that it must possess no ordinary interest and
importance. He who is represented to us in Scripture as being
God and man in one person, is also described as the only Mediator
between God and man, — as the only Saviour of sinners. If it be
indeed true, as the Scripture plainly teaches, that the divine and
human natures were united in His one person, it is undeniable
that this union must have been formed in order to the salvation
of sinners, and that the plan which God devised and executed for
saving sinners, must just consist in, or be based upon, what Christ,
as God and man in one person, did, in order to effect this object.
This was the work which the Father gave Him to do ; and by
doing it He has secured the deliverance from everlasting misery,
and the eternal blessedness, of as many as the Father has given
Him, — " an innumerable company, which no man can number,
out of every kindred, and nation, and people, and tongue."

Sec. 1. — Connection between the Person and Work of Christ.

In systematic expositions of the scheme of divine truth, the
subject of the person of the Mediator, or the scriptural account

238 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

of who and what Christ was, is usually followed by the subject of
the work of Christ, or the account of what He did for the salva-
tion of sinners. The terms commonly employed by theologians
to describe in general the work of Christ as Mediator, are mimus
and officium; and divines of almost all classes have admitted that
the leading features of the scriptural representations of what
Christ did for the salvation of sinners, might be fully brought
out, by ascribing to Him the three offices of a Prophet, a Priest,
and a King, and by unfolding what it was He did in the execu-
tion of these three offices.

It is plain, from the nature of the case, that the subjects of
the person and the work of Christ must be, in fact and in doc-
trine, intimately connected with each other. If the Mediator was
God and man in one person, then we might confidently expect
that He would do, and that it would be necessary for Him to do,
in order to the salvation of sinners, what no man, what no crea-
ture, was competent to do. And when we survey what Scripture
seems to hold up to us as the work which He wrought for our
salvation, we can scarcely fail to be impressed with the conviction,
that, from its very nature, it required one who was possessed of
infinite perfection and excellence to accomplish it. Accordingly,
we find that the admission or denial of Christ's divinity has always
affected fundamentally the whole of men's views in regard to
almost everything in the scheme of salvation, and especially in
regard to Christ's mediatorial work.

Sociniaus, holding that Christ was a mere man, teach, in per-
fect consistency with this, that He did nothing for the salvation
of men except what may be comprehended under the general
head or description of revealing, confirming, and illustrating truth
or doctrine, and of setting us an example, — a work to which any
creature, even a mere man, of course employed and qualified by
God for the purpose, was perfectly competent. Arians — holding
Christ to be a superhuman, but still a created, and not a divine or
infinite being — are accustomed, in accordance with this view of
the person of the Mediator, to introduce an additional and some-
what higher notion into their representation of the nature of His
work. It is, in substance, that of influence exerted by Him witii
God, in order to prevail upon Him to pardon sinners and admit
them into the enjoyment of His favour. Christ, as a highly
exalted creature, who took a deep interest in the salvation of

Sec. I.] THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. 239

sinners, and was willing to endure, and did endure, humiliation
and suffering on their account, did what was very meritorious in
itself and very acceptable to God ; and thus acquired such in-
fluence with God, as that He consented, at Christ's request, and
from a regard to Him, and to what He had done, to forgive
sinners, and to bestow upon them spiritual blessings. This is, in
substance, the view entertained of the general nature of Christ's
work by those who regard Him as an exalted, superangelic crea-
ture ; and I fear that a vague impression of something similar
to this, and not going much beyond it, floats in the minds of many
amongst us, who have never thought or speculated on religious
subjects. Almost all who have held the doctrine of Christ's
proper divinity, have also believed that His sufferings and death
were vicarious, — that is, that they were endured in the room and
stead of sinners, — and have regarded the most important, peculiar,
and essential features of His mediatorial work to be His substitu-
tion in our room and stead, — the satisfaction which He rendered
to divine justice, — though it must be admitted that there have
been differences of opinion, of no small importance, among those
who have concurred in maintaining these general scriptural truths
with respect both to the person and the work of Christ.

It is one of the peculiar features of the theology of the present
day, that this remarkable and important connection of great prin-
ciples is overlooked or denied. There are many in the present
day who make a profession of believing in the proper divinity,
and even in the eternal Sonship, of the Saviour, who yet deny the
doctrine that has been generally held in the Christian church
concerning the atonement, and put forth, upon this point, notions
substantially the same as those of the Socinians and Arians.
They give prominence to the mere incarnation of Christ, without
connecting and combining it with His sufferings and death, and
with His fulfilment of all righteousness in their room and stead,
resolving it into a mere manifestation of the divine character and
purposes, intended to make an impression upon our minds. But
they have not succeeded in bringing out anything like an adequate
cause for so remarkable a peculiarity as the assumption of human
nature by the second person of the Godhead ; while a confirma-
tion of the great principles we have laid down about the connec-
tion of doctrine is to be found in the fact, that the views of these
men, even about the divinity of the Son, however plausibly they

240

DOCTEINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

may sometimes be put forth, turn out, when carefully examined,
to be materially different from those which have been usually
held in the Christian church, as taught in Scripture ; and re-
solve very much into a kind of Platonic Sabellianism, which
explains away any really personal distinction in the Godhead,
and thus becomes virtually identified with the ordinary view of
Socinians or Unitarians. The fact that influential writers in the
present day make a profession of believing in the divinity and
incarnation of the Saviour, while denying His vicarious and satis-
factory atonement, is a reason why we should make it an object
to understand and develope fully the connection between these
two great departments of scriptural truth ; to perceive and to ex-
plain— so far as Scripture affords any materials for doing so — how
the one leads to and supports the other, — how the incarnation
and atonement of our Lord are closely and indissolubly connected
together, — and how, in combination, they form the ground and
basis of all our hopes.*

There is a manifest enough congruity between the three dis-
tinctive schemes of doctrine, as to the person of the Mediator,
and the corresponding opinions with respect to His work ; and
there would of course be nothing strange in this, if the whole
subject were one of mere intellectual speculation, in regard to
which men were warranted and called upon to follow out their
own views to all their legitimate logical results. But since all
parties profess to derive their views upon this subject from the
statements of Scripture, exactly and critically interpreted, it is
somewhat singular that they should all find in Scripture a line of
different opinions in regard to Christ's work running parallel to a
corresponding series in regard to His person. Tlie fact affords
too good reasons for the conclusion, that it is very common for
men, even when professing to be simply investigating the mean-
ing of scriptural statements, to be greatly, if not chiefly, influenced
by certain previous notions of a general kind, which, whether
upon good grounds or not, they have been led to form, as to what
Scripture does say, or should say ; and is thus fitted to impress
upon us the important lesson, that if we would escape the guilt of

* This paragraph is taken from
Sermon delivered by Dr. Cunningliam
at the opening of the General As-

sembly of the Free Church, 1'
I860.— Edrs.

'th May

Sec. I.] THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. 241

distorting and perverting the whole word of God, and of mis-
understanding the whole scheme of salvation, we must be very
careful to derive all our views, upon matters of religious doctrine,
from the sacred Scripture, in place of getting them from some
other source, and then bringing them to it, and virtually em-
ploying them, more or less openly and palpably, to overrule its
authority, and to pervert its meaning.

I have said that it has been the general practice of theo-
logians since the Reformation, to expound the scriptural doctrine
concerning the work of Christ as Mediator, in the way of ascrib-
ing to Him the three distinct offices of a Prophet, a Priest, and
a King ; and then classifying and illustrating, under these three
heads, the different departments of the work which He wrought
for the salvation of sinners. This division, if represented and
applied as one which certainly comprehends and exhausts the sub-
ject, cannot be said to have direct scriptural authority ; and yet
there is enough in Scripture to suggest and warrant the adoption
of it, as a useful and convenient arrangement, though nothing to
warrant us in drawing inferences or conclusions from it, as if it
were both accurate and complete. The ground or warrant for
it is this: — that it is very easy to prove from Scripture that
Christ, as Mediator, is a Prophet, a Priest, and a King ; that He
executed the functions of these three different offices ; and that
all the leading departments of His work — of what He did for the
salvation of sinners, as it is set before us in Scripture — fall
naturally and easily under the ordinary and appropriate functions
of these different offices. The propriety and utility of this divi-
sion have been a good deal discussed by some Continental writers.
Ernesti — who was, however, much more eminent as a critic than
as a theologian — laboured to show, in a dissertation, " De officio
Christi triplici," published in his Opuscula Theologica* that the
division has no sanction from Scripture, and is fitted only to in-
troduce confusion and error ; and his views and arguments have
been adopted by Doederlein, Morus, and Knapp. f There is,
however, very little force in their objections, and the division
continues still to be generally adopted by the most eminent
Continental theologians of the present day. The leading point

* P. 371, ed. 1792.
t Doederlein, Institutio Theologi
Christiuni, § 305, Pars ii. p. 507.

Knapp's Lectures on Christian Theo-
logy, pp. 334-336. Vide also Mori
Epitome, p. 193.

3— VOL. II. Q

242 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

which the opponents of this division labour to establish is, that in
Scripture the functions of these different offices are not always
exactly discriminated from each other. But this position, even
though proved, is very little to the purpose : for it can scarcely
be disputed that Scripture does afford us sufficient materials for
forming pretty definite conceptions of the respective natures and
functions of these three offices, as distinct from each other ; and
that, in point of fact, the leading departments of Clirist's work
admit easily and naturally of being classed under the heads of
the appropriate functions of these three offices, as the Scripture
ordinarily discriminates them. This is quite sufficient to sanc-
tion the distinction as unobjectionable, useful, and convenient;
while, of course, as it proves nothing of itself, all must admit
the obligation lying upon those who make use of it, to produce
distinct and satisfactory scriptural proof of every position they
maintain, as to the nature, object, and effects of anything that
Christ is alleged to have done in the execution of these different
offices.

It may be described in general, as the characteristic of the
Socinian system of theology upon this subject, that it regards
Christ merely as a Prophet, — that is, merely as revealing and
establishing truths or doctrines concerning God and divine things,
— while it denies that He executed the office of a Priest or of a Kin^.
But while this is true in substance, there are one or two explana-
tions that may assist us in understanding the discussions which
occur upon this subject among the older theologians. The original
Socinians, as I have already had occasion to mention, usually ad-
mitted that Christ executed the office of a King, and they did not
altogether, and in every sense, deny that He executed the office of
a Priest ; while they conjoined or confounded the priestly and the
kingly offices. I then explained that, though very far from being
deficient either in ingenuity or in courage, they were unable to
evade the evidence that Christ, after His resurrection, was raised
to a station of exalted power, which in some way or other He
employed for promoting the spiritual and eternal welfare of men.
Their leading position, in regard to Christ's priestly office, was, that
He did not execute it at all upon earth, but only after His ascen-
sion to heaven; and that, of course, His sufferings and death formed
no part of it, — these being intended merely to afford us an example
of virtue, and to confirm and establish the doctrine of the ira-

Sec. I.] THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. 243

mortality of the soul. The execution of His priestly office did
not commence till after His ascension, and was only an aspect or
modification of the kingly office, or of the exercise of the powers
with which He had been invested ; while everything connected
with the objects to which this power was directed, or the way and
manner in which it was exercised, was left wholly unexplained.
Modern Socinians, having discovered that Scripture gives us no
definite information as to the place which Christ now occupies, and
the manner in which He is now engaged ; and being satisfied that
all that is said in Scripture about His priesthood is wholly figura-
tive ; and, moreover, that the figure means nothing, real or true,
being taken from mere Jewish notions, — have altogether discarded
both the priestly and the kingly offices, and have thus brought out
somewhat more plainly and openly, what the old Socinians held in
substance, though they conveyed it in a more scriptural phraseology.
It is under the head of the priestly office of Christ that the
great and infinitely important subject of His satisfaction or atone-
ment is discussed ; and this may be regarded as the most peculiar
and essential feature of the work which He wrought, as Mediator,
for the salvation of sinners, — that which stands in most immediate
and necessary connection with the divinity of His person. We
can conceive it possible that God might have given us a very full
revelation of His will, and abundantly confirmed the certainty of
the information which He communicated, as well as have set before
us a complete pattern of every virtue for our imitation, through the
instrumentality of a creature, or even of a mere matu We can con-
ceive a creature exalted by God to a very high pitch of power and
dignity, and made the instrument, in the exercise of this power, of
accomplishing very important results bearing upon the spiritual and
eternal welfare of men. But when the ideas of satisfying the divine
justice and the divine law, in the room and stead of sinners, — and
thereby reconciling men to God, whose law they had broken, —
are presented to our minds, and in some measure realized, here we
cannot but be impressed with the conviction, that if these ideas
describe actual realities, we have got into a region in which there
is no scope for the agency or operation of a mere creature, and in
which infinite power and perfection are called for. We are not,
indeed, to imagine that we fully and rightly understand the pro-
phetical office of the Mediator, unless we regard the great Revealer
of God as one who was the brightness of His glory and the express

244 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

image of His person, — as having been from eternity in the bosom
of the Father. And it is proper also to remember, that we can
scarcely conceive it to be possible that the actual power and
dominion which the Scriptures ascribe to Christ as Mediator, and
which He is ever exercising in the execution of His kingly office, —
including, as it does, the entire government of the universe, and the
absolute disposal of the everlasting destinies of all men, — could be
delegated to and exercised by any creature, however exalted. We
only wish to remark that the general ideas of revealing God's will,
and exercising power or dominion, — which may be said to constitute
the essence of the doctrine concerning the prophetical and kingly
offices of Christ, — are more within the range of our ordinary con-
ceptions ; and that though, in point of fact, applicable to Christ
in a way in which they could not apply to any creature, yet they
do not of themselves suggest so readily the idea of the necessity of
a divine Mediator as those which are commonly associated with
the priestly office. The priestly office, accordingly, has been the
principal subject of controversial discussion, both from its more
immediate connection with the proper divinity of Christ's person,
and from its more extensive and influential bearing upon all the
provisions and arrangements of the scheme of salvation.

It is very manifest, on the most cursory survey of the sacred
Scriptures, that the salvation of sinners is ascribed to the sufferings
and death of Christ, — that His sufferings and death are represented
as intimately connected with, and influentially bearing upon, this
infinitely important result. Indeed, the whole subject which is
now under consideration may be regarded, in one aspect of it, as
virtually resolving into the investigation of this question : What
is the relation subsisting between the sufferings and death of Christ
and the salvation of sinners ? In what precise way do they bear
upon men's obtaining or receiving the forgiveness of their sins
and the enjoyment of God's favour ? And in further consider-
ing this subject, it will be convenient, for the sake both of dis-
tinctness and brevity, to advert only to the death of Christ ; for
though most of the advocates of the generally received doctrine
of the atonement regard the whole of Christ's humiliation and
sufferings, from His incarnation to His crucifixion, as invested with
a priestly, sacrificial, and piacular character, — as constituting His
once offering up of Himself a sacrifice, — as all propitiatory of God,
and expiatory of men's sins, — yet, in accordance with the general

Sec. I.] THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. 245

representations of Scripture, tliey regard His oblation or sacrifice of
Himself, as a piacular victim, as principally manifested, and as con-
centrated in His pouring out His soul unto death, — His bearing our
sins in His own body on the tree. And we may also, for the same
reasons, — and because we do not intend at present to discuss the
whole subject of justification, and the bearing of Christ's work upon
all that is implied in that word, — speak generally, and in the first
instance, in adverting to the object to be effected, of the pardon or
forgiveness of men's sins, — an expression sometimes used in Scrip-
ture as virtually including or implying the whole of our salvation,
because it is a fundamental part of it, and because it may be justly
regarded as, in some respects, the primary thing to be attended to
in considering our relation to God and our everlasting destinies.

We have already stated generally the different doctrines or
theories which have been propounded — all professing to rest upon
scriptural authority — in regard to the connection between the death
of Christ and the forgiveness of men's sins, taking these two ex-
pressions in the sense now explained. The Socinian doctrine * is,
that the death of Christ bears upon this result merely by confirm-
ing and illustrating truths, and by setting an example of virtue ;
and thus affording motives and encouragements to the exercise of
repentance and the performance of good actions, by which we our-
selves procure or obtain for ourselves the forgiveness of sin and the
enjoyment of God's favour, — its whole power and efficacy being
thus placed in the confirmation of truth and in the exhibition of
exemplary virtue. The doctrine commonly held by Arians is, that
Christ, by submitting to suffering and to death, on men's account,
and with a view to their benefit, has done what was very accept-
able to God, and has thus obtained a position of influence with
God, which He exercises by interceding in some way or other for
the purpose of procuring for men forgiveness and favour. Now
it may be said to be true that the Scripture does ascribe these
effects to the death of Christ, and that, of course, that event is
fitted, and was intended, to produce them. The death of Christ
was a testimony to truths, and is well adapted to establish and
illustrate them, though what these truths are must depend essen-
tially upon what that event was in its whole character and bearing.

* See summary of the Socinian doc- ! tione, c. viii. p. 168, and c. x. p. 206 ;
trine given in Grotius, De Satisfac- \ c. i. pp. 40-44:. Ed. 1661.

246 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

It is fitted, and of course was intended, to afford us motives and
encouragements to repentance and holiness. This is true, but
it is very far from being the whole of the truth upon the subject.
It is likewise true that Scripture sanctions the general idea
of Christ — by suffering and dying for the sake of men — doing
what was pleasing and acceptable to God, — of His being in con-
sequence rewarded, and raised to a position of high power and
dignity, — and of His interceding with God, or using influence
with Him, to procure for men spiritual blessings. All this is
true, and it is held by those who maintain the commonly re-
ceived doctrine of the atonement. But neither is this the whole
of the truth which Scripture teaches upon the subject. And what
in it is true, as thus generally expressed, is not brought out so
fully and explicitly, as the Scripture affords us ample materials
for doing, by connecting it with the doctrine of the atonement.

Some men would fain persuade us that the substance of all
that Scripture teaches us concerning the way of salvation is this,
— that an exalted and glorious Being interposed on behalf of sin-
ners,— mediated between them and an offended God ; and by this
interposition and influence procured for them the forgiveness of
their sins, and the enjoyment of God's favour. Now all this is
true. There is nothing in this general statement which contradicts
or opposes anything that is taught us in Scripture. But, just as
the Scripture affords us, as we have seen, abundant materials for
defining much more fully and explicitly the real nature, dignity,
and position of this exalted Being, and leaves us not to mere
vague generalities upon this point, but warrants and requires us
to believe and maintain that He was of the same nature and sub-
stance with the Father, and equal in power and glory ; so, in like
manner, in regard to what He did for men's salvation, the Scrip-
ture does not leave us to the vague generalities of His mediating
or interposing, interceding or using influence, on our behalf, but
affords us abundant materials for explaining much more precisely
and definitely the nature or kind of His mediation or interposition,
— the foundation of His intercession, — the ground or source of
His influence. The commonly received doctrine of the satisfaction
or atonement of Christ just professes to bring out this more full
and specific information; and the substance of it is this, — that the
xcay and manner in which He mediated or interposed in behalf of
sinners, and in order to effect their deliverance or salvation, was

Sec. I.] THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. 247

by putting Himself in their place, — by substituting Himself in
their room and stead, — suffering, as their substitute or surety,
the penalty of the law which they had broken, the punishment
which they had deserved by their sins, — and thereby satisfying
the claims of divine justice, and thus reconciling them to God.
This great scriptural doctrine is thus expressed in our Confes-
sion of Faith ; * " The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and
sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once
offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father;
and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inherit-
ance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father
hath given unto Him ; " or, in the words of the Shorter Cate-
chism, " Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in His once
offering up of Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and re-
concile us to God; and in making continual intercession for us."

Here I may remark, as illustrating some preceding observa-
tions,— though this is not a topic which I mean to dwell upon, —
that His intercession succeeds, and is based upon, His sacrifice
and satisfaction ; and that thus distinctness and definiteness are
given to the idea which it expresses. When men's deliverance, or
their possession of spiritual blessings, is ascribed, in general, to
the intercession of Christ, without being accompanied with an ex-
position of Plis vicarious sacrifice and satisfaction, as the ground or
basis on which it rests, no more definite meaning can be attached
to it than merely that of using some influence, in order to procure
for men what they need from God. But when His vicarious
sacrifice and satisfaction are first asserted as the great leading
department of the work which He wrought for the salvation of
sinners, and His intercession is then introduced as following this,
and based upon it, we escape from this vague generality, and are
warranted and enabled to represent His intercession as implying
that He pleads with God, in behalf of men, and in order to
obtain for them the forgiveness of their sins, this most relevant
and weighty consideration, — viz., that He has suffered in their
room, that He has endured in their stead the whole penalty which
their sins had deserved.

The great doctrine, that Christ offered Himself as a vicarious
sacrifice, — that is, a sacrifice in the room and stead of sinners, as

* C. viii. 8. 5.

248 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

their surety and substitute ; that He did so, in order to satisfy
divine justice and reconcile them to God ; and that, of course, by
doing so, He has satisfied divine justice and reconciled them to
God, — has been always held and maintained by the great body
of the Christian church. It was not, indeed, like the doctrines of
the Trinity and the person of Christ, subjected, at an early period
in the history of the church, to a thorough and searching con-
troversial discussion ; and, in consequence of this, men's views in
regard to it continued always to partake somewhat of the cha-
racter of vagueness and indistinctness. It can scarcely be said
to have been fully expounded and discussed, in such a way as to
bring out thoroughly its true nature and its scriptural grounds,
until after the publication of the works of Socinus ; for Anselm's
contributions to the right exposition of this doctrine, important
as they are, scarcely come up to this description. It formed no
part of the controversy between the Eeformers and the Roman-
ists ; for the Church of Rome has always continued to profess
the substance of scriptural truth on this subject, as well as on
that of the Trinity, though, according to her usual practice, she
has grievously corrupted, and almost wholly neutralized, the truth
which she professedly holds. Socinus was the first who made
a full and elaborate effort to overturn the doctrine which the
church had always held upon this subject, and which, though
not very fully or explicitly developed as a topic of speculation,
had constituted the source at once of the hopes and the motives
of God's people from the beginning. This he did chiefly in his
treatise, De Jesu Christo Servatore, and in his Prcelectiones
Theologicce ; and it certainly required no ordinary ingenuity for
one man, and without the benefit of much previous discussion
upon the point, to devise a whole system of plausible evasions
and perversions, for the purpose of showing that the doctrine
which the whole church had hitherto believed upon the subject
was not taught in Scripture. Ever since that period the doctrine
of the atonement or satisfaction of Christ has been very fully
discussed in all its bearings and aspects, affecting as it does, and
must do, the whole scheme of Christian truth ; and the result
has been, that the Socinian evasions and perversions of Scripture
have been triumphantly exposed, and that the generally received
doctrine of the church has been conclusively established, and
placed upon an immoveable basis, by the most exact and search-

Sec. II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 249

ing investigation, conducted upon the soundest and strictest
critical principles, into the meaning of the numerous and varied
scriptural statements that bear upon this subject.

In considering this subject, I propose to advert, in the first
place, to the doctrine of the atonement or satisfaction of Christ in
general, as held by the universal church, — by Papists, Lutherans,
Calvinists, and Arminians, — in opposition to the Socinians and
other deniers of our Lord's divinity ; in the second place, to the
peculiarities of the Arminian doctrine upon this subject, as affected
and determined by its relation to the general system of Arminian
theology ; and in the third place, to the doctrine which has been
propounded, upon this subject, by those who profess Calvinistic
principles upon other points, but who, upon tlds^ hold views iden-
tical with, or closely resembling those of, the Arminians, especially
in regard to the extent of the atonement.

Sec, 2. — Necessity of the Atonement.

In considering the subject of the atonement, it may be proper
to advert, in the first place, to a topic which has given rise to a
good deal of discussion, — namely, the necessity of an atonement or
satisfaction, in order to the forgiveness of men's sins. The Soci-
nians allege that a vicarious atonement or satisfaction for sin is
altogether unnecessary, and adduce this consideration as a proof,
or at least a presumption, against its truth or reality ; while the
advocates of an atonement have not been contented with showing
that its non-necessity could not be proved, but have, in general,
further averred positively that it was necessary, — have undertaken
to prove this, — and have made the evidence of its necessity at once
an argument in favour of its truth and reality, and a means of
illustrating its real nature and operation. The assertion, as well
as the denial, of the necessity of an atonement, must, from the
nature of the case, be based upon certain ideas of the attributes
and moral government of God, viewed in connection with the
actual state and condition of man as a transgressor of His law ; and
the subject thus leads to discussions in which there is a great
danger of indulging in presumptuous speculations on points of
which we can know nothing, except in so far as God has been
pleased to convey to us information in His word. It can scarcely
be said that the Scripture gives us any direct or explicit informa-

250 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

tion upon the precise question, whether or not the salvation of
sinners could possibly have been effected in any other way than
through an atonement or satisfaction ; and it is not indispensable
for any important purpose that this question should be determined.
The only point of vital importance is that of the truth or reality of
an atonement, and then the consideration of its true nature and
bearing. We have just to ascertain from Scripture what was the
true character and object of Christ's death, and the w^ay and
manner in which, in point of fact, it bears upon the forgiveness of
men's sins, and their relation to God and to His law ; and when we
have ascertained this, it cannot be of fundamental importance that
we should investigate and determine the question, whether or not
it was loossihle for God to have forgiven men without satisfaction.
Had the materials for determining the question of the truth
and reahty of an atonement been scanty or obscure, then the pre-
sumption arising from anything we might be able to know or
ascertain as to its necessity or non-necessity, might be of some
avail in turning the scale upon the question of its truth or reality.
But when we have in Scripture such explicit and abundant ma-
terials for establishing the great doctrine that, in point of fact,
Christ did offer up Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice,
we are entitled to feel, and we ought to feel, that, in stating and
arguing this question, we are wholly independent of the alleged
necessity or non-necessity of an atonement; and having ascer-
tained what God has done, — what provision He has made, — what
scheme He has adopted, — we need not be very anxious about
settling the question, whether or not He could have accomplished
the result in any other way or by any other means. But while it
is proper that we should understand that this question about the
necessity of an atonement is not one of vital importance in de-
fending our cause against the Socinians, as we have full and
abundant evidence of its truth and reality; yet, since the subject
has been largely discussed among theologians, — since almost all
who have held the truth and reality of an atonement have also
maintained its necessity, — and since the consideration of the sub-
ject brings out some views tvhich, though not indispensable to the
proof of its truth or reality, are yet true and important in them-
selves, and very useful in illustrating its nature and bearings, —
it may be proper to give a brief notice of the points that are
usually introduced into the discussion of this question.

Sec. II.] ' NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 251

Let us first advert to the ground taken by the Sociniaus upon
this department of the subject. They deny the necessity of an
atonement or satisfaction for sin, upon the ground that the essen-
tial benevolence and compassion of God must have prompted,
and that His supreme dominion must have enabled, Him to for-
give men's sins without any atonement or satisfaction ; and that
there was nothing in His nature, government, or law, which threw
any obstacle in the way of His at once exercising His sovereign
dominion in accordance with the promptings of His compassion,
and extending forgiveness to all upon the condition of repentance
and reformation.

Now, in the first place, an allegation of this sort is sufficiently
met by the scriptural proof, that, in point of fact, an atonement
was offered, — that satisfaction was made, and that forgiveness
and salvation are held out to men, and bestowed upon them, only
on the footing of this atonement. And then, in the second place,
if we should, ex ahundanti^ examine the Socinian position more
directly, it is no difficult matter to show that they have not proved,
and cannot prove, any one of the positions on which they rest the
alleged non-necessity of an atonement. As they commonly allege
that the doctrine of the Trinity is a denial of the divine unity, so
they usually maintain that the doctrine of the atonement involves
a denial of the divine placability.* That placability is an attri-
bute or quality of God, is unquestionable. This general position
can be fully established from revelation, however doubtful or
uncertain may be the proof of it derived from reason or nature.
Independently altogether of general scriptural declarations, it is
established by the facts, that, as all admit, God desired and de-
termined to forgive and to save sinners who had broken His law,
and made provision for carrying this gracious purpose into effect.
But there is no particular statement in Scripture, and no general
principle clearly sanctioned by it, which warrants us to assert that
God's placability required of Him that He should forgive men's
sins without an atonement, and upon the mere condition of repent-
ance. Placability is not the only attribute or quality of God.
There are other features of His character, established both by His
works and His word, which, viewed by themselves, are manifestly

* Priestley's History of the Corruptions of Christianity^ P. ii. Introd. vol. i.
p. 146.

252 DOCTKLNE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

fitted to lead us to draw an opposite conclusion as to the way in
which He would, in point of fact, deal with sin and sinners, —
well fitted to excite the apprehension that He will inflict upon
them the punishment which, by their sins, they have merited.
In these circumstances, it is utterly unwarrantable for us, without
clear authority from Scripture, to indulge in dogmatic assertions
as to what God certainly will, or will not, do in certain circum-
stances.

Neither Scripture nor reason warrant the position that re-
pentance is, in its own nature, an adequate reason or ground,
ordinarily and in general, and still less in all cases, for pardoning
those who have transgressed a law to which they were subject.
It is in entire accordance with the dictates of reason, and with
the ordinary practice of men, to inflict the full penalty of the
law upon repentant criminals ; and there is no ground on which
we are warranted to assert that God cannot, or certainly will not,
follow a similar course in regard to those who have transgressed
His law. The Socinians are accustomed, in discussing this point,
to dwell upon the scriptural statements with respect to repentance,
its necessity and importance, and the connection subsisting be-
tween it and forgiveness. But there is nothing in these state-
ments which establishes the position they undertake to maintain
upon this subject. Those statements prove, indeed, that sinners
are under an imperative obligation to repent ; and they prove
further, that, according to the arrangements which God has
actually made, an invariable connection subsists between for-
giveness and repentance, so_^that it is true that without repent-
ance there is no forgiveness, and that wherever there is real
repentance, forgiveness is bestowed ; and that thus men are com-
manded and bound to repent in order to their being forgiven, and
are warranted to infer their forgiveness from their repentance.
The scriptural statements prove all this, but they prove nothing
more ; and this is not enough to give support to the Socinian
argument. All this may be true, while it may still be false that
repentance is the sole cause or condition of the forgiveness, —
the sole, or even the principal, reason on account of which it is
bestowed ; and if so, then there is abundant room left for the ad-
mission of the principle, that a vicarious atonement or satisfaction
was also necessary in order to the forgiveness of sin, and was
indeed the true ground on which the forgiveness was conferred.

Sec. II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 253

But while it is thus shown that this may be true, in entire
consistency with all that Scripture says about forgiveness, and
the connection between it and repentance, and while this is amply
sufficient to refute the Socinian argument, we undertake further
to prove from Scripture, that the atonement or satisfaction of
Christ is indeed the ground on which forgiveness rests, and that
this principle must be taken in, and must have its proper place
assigned to it, if we would receive and maintain the whole doc-
trine which the word of God plainly teaches us in regard to this
most momentous subject. But more than this, the advocates of
the generally received doctrine of the atonement not only deny
and disprove the Socinian allegation of its non-necessity, — not
only show that Socinians cannot prove that it was not necessary, —
they themselves, in general, positively aver that it was necessary,
and think they can produce satisfactory evidence of the truth of
this position. There is, at first view, something repulsive — as
having the appearance of unwarranted presumption — in asserting
the necessity of an atonement or satisfaction, as it really amounts
in substance to this, that God could not have pardoned men unless
an atonement had been made, — unless a satisfaction had been ren-
dered for their sins ; and it may appear more suited to the modesty
and reverence with which we ought to speak on such a subject,
to say that, for aught we know, God might have saved men in
other ways, or through other means, but that He has adopted that
method or scheme which was the wisest and the best, — best fitted
to promote His own glory, and secure the great ends of His moral
government. We find, however, upon further consideration, that
the case is altogether so peculiar, and that the grounds of the asser-
tion are so clear and strong, as to warrant it, even though an ex-
plicit deliverance upon this precise point is not given us in Scripture.

As to the general position, that an atonement or satisfaction
was necessary, — or rather, that God could not have made provision
for pardoning and saving sinners in any other way than that
which He has actually adopted, — this seems fully warranted, inde-
pendently of any other consideration, by the Scripture doctrine of
the proper divinity of the Saviour. The incarnation of the eternal
Son of God, — the assumption of human nature by One who was
at the same time possessor of the divine, — the fact that this Being,
who is God and man in one person, spent a life on earth of
obscurity and humiliation, — that He endured many sufferings and

254 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

indignities, and was at last subjected to a cruel and ignominious
death ; — all this, if it be true, — if it be an actual reality, — as
Scripture requires us to believe, is so peculiar and extraordinary in
its whole character and aspects, that whenever we are led to realize
it, we feel ourselves at once irresistibly constrained to say that this
would not have taken place if it had been possible that the result
to which it was directed — namely, the forgiveness and salvation
of sinners — could have been effected in any other way, or by any
other means. We feel, and we cannot but feel, that there is no
unwarranted presumption in saying, that if it had been possible
that the salvation of guilty men could have been otherwise ac-
complished, the only-begotten Son of God would not have left
the glory which He had with His Father from eternity, assumed
human nature, and suffered and died on earth. This ground,
were there nothing more revealed regarding it, would warrant us
to make the general assertion, that the incarnation, suffering, and
death of Christ were necessary to the salvation of sinners, — that
this result could not have been effected without them. This con-
sideration, indeed, has no weight with Socinians, as they do not
admit the grand peculiarity on which it is based, — namely, the
divinity and the incarnation of Him who came to save sinners.
Still it is an ample warrant for our general assertion, as being
clearly implied in,' and certainly deducible from, a doctrine which
•we undertake to prove to be plainly revealed in Scripture.

It ought, hovfever, to be noticed, that the precise position
which this general consideration warrants us to assert, is not
directly and immediately the necessity of an atonement or satis-
faction, but only the necessity of the sufferings and death of
Christ, whatever may have been the character attaching to them, or
the precise effect immediately resulting from them, in connection
with the salvation of sinners ; and that, accordingly, it was only
the warrantableness of introducing the idea, and the expression of
necessity, as applicable to the subject in general, that we had in
view in bringing it forward ; and we have now to advert to the
indications supposed to be given us in Scripture, of the grounds
or reasons of this necessity. Scripture fully warrants us in
saying that there ai'e things which God cannot do. It says ex-
pressly that He cannot deny Himself ; that He cannot lie ; that
He cannot repent (though there is an improper sense in which
repentance is ascribed to Him) ; and He cannot do these things,

Sec. II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 255

just because He is God, and not man, — because He is possessed
of divine and infinite perfection. And if it be in any sense true
that an atonement or satisfaction was necessary — or, what is in
substance the same thing, that God could not have pardoned
sinners without it — this must be because the attributes of His
nature or the principles of His government — in other words,
His excellence or perfection — prevented or opposed it, or threw
obstacles in the way, which could not otherwise be removed.
Accordingly, this is the general position which the advocates of
the necessity of an atonement maintain.

The most obvious and palpable consideration usually adduced
in support of the necessity of an atonement, is that derived from
the law of God, especially the threatenings which, in the law,
He has denounced against transgressors. The law which God
has promulgated is this: "The soul which sinneth shall die."
If God has indeed said this, — if He has uttered this threaten-
ing,— this would seem to render it certain and necessary, that
wherever sin has been committed, death, with all that it includes
or implies, should be inflicted, unless God were to repent, or to
deny Himself, or to lie, — all which the Scripture assures us He
cannot do, because of the perfection of His nature. And it is
a remarkable coincidence, that the only cases in which Scripture
says explicitly that God cannot do certain things, all bear upon
and confirm the position, that He cannot pardon sin without an
atonement ; inasmuch as to say that He could pardon sin with-
out an atonement, would, in the circumstances, amount to a
virtual declaration that He could lie, that He could repent, that
He could deny Himself. Upon this ground, the possibility of
men who had sinned escaping death — that is, everlasting misery
— would seem to be precluded. If such a being as God is has
threatened sin with the punishment of death, there must be a
serious difficulty in the way of sinners escaping. His veracity
seems to prevent this, and to present an insuperable obstacle.
In pardoning sinners, or in exempting them from the death
which they have incurred, it would seem that He must trample
upon His own law, and disregard His own threatening ; and this
the very perfection of His nature manifestly forbids.

Socinians, indeed, have been accustomed to allege, that though
God is obliged by His veracity to perform His promises, — because
by promising He has conferred upon His creatures a right to

256 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

the fulfilment of the promise, — yet that His veracity does not
oblige Him to fulfil His threatenings, because the party to whose
case they apply has no right, and puts forth no claim, to their
infliction. But this is a mere evasion of the difficulty. God is
a law unto Himself. His own inherent perfection obliges Him
always to do what is right and just, and that irrespective of any
rights which His creatures may have acquired, or any claims
which they may prefer. On this ground, His veracity seems
equally to require that He should execute threatenings, as that
He should fulfil promises. If He does not owe this to sinners,
He owes it to Himself. When He threatened sin with the
punishment of death. He was not merely giving an abstract
declaration as to what sin merited, and might justly bring upon
those who committed it, — He was declaring the way and manner
in which He would, in fact, treat it when it occurred. The law
denouncing death as the punishment of sin was thus a virtual
prediction of what God would do in certain circumstances ; and
when these circumstances occurred. His veracity required that
He should act as He had foretold.

We can conceive of no way in which it is possible that the
honour and integrity of the divine law could be maintained, or
the divine veracity be preserved pure and unstained, if sinners
were not subjected to death, except by an adequate atonement or
satisfaction being rendered in their room and stead. No depth
of reflection, no extent of experience, could suggest anything but
this, which could render the sinner's exemption from death pos-
sible. There is much in the history of the world to suggest this,
but nothing whatever to suggest anything else. We are not
entitled, indeed, apart from the discoveries of revelation, to assert
that even this would render the pardon of the sinner possible,
consistently with the full exercise of the divine veracity, and full
maintenance of the honour of the divine law ; and still less are
we entitled to assert that, even if an adequate atonement or
satisfaction might render the escape of the sinner possible, it
was further possible that such an atonement or satisfaction could
in fact be rendered. We are not warranted to assert these things
independently of revelation; but we have strong grounds for
asserting that, if God did threaten death as the punishment of
sin, nothing could have prevented the infliction of the threaten-
ing, and rendered the escape of the sinner possible, except an

Sec. II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 257

adequate atonement or satisfaction, — that this at least was indis-
pensable, if even this could have been of any avail.

But those who hold the necessity of an atonement or satis-
faction in order to the pardon of the sin and the escape of the
sinner, usually rest it, not merely upon the law of God as re-
vealed, and upon His veracity as concerned in the execution of the
threatenings which He has publicly denounced, but also upon the
inherent perfection of His nature, independently of any declara-
tion He may have made, or any prediction He may have uttered,
— and more especially upon His justice. The discussion of this
point leads us into some more abstruse and difficult inquiries than
the former ; and it must be confessed that here we have not such
clear and certain materials for our conclusions, and that we should
feel deeply the necessity of following closely the guidance and
direction of Scripture. The representations given us in Scripture
of the justice of God, are fitted to impress upon us the conviction
that it requires Him to give to every one his due, — what he has
merited by his conduct, — and of course to give to the sinner the
punishment which he has deserved. What God has threatened,
His veracity requires Him to inflict, because He has threatened it.
But the threatening itself must have originated in the inherent
perfection of His own nature prompting Him to punish sin as it
deserves ; and to threaten to punish, because it is already and ante-
cedently right to do so. God's law, or His revealed will, declaring
what His creatures should do, and what He Himself luill do, is the
transcript or expression of the inherent perfections of His own
nature. The acts of the divine government, and the obligations
of intelligent creatures, result from, and are determined by, the
divine law, as their immediate or approximate cause and stand-
ard; but they all, as well as the divine law itself, are traceable to
the divine nature — to the essential perfections of God — as their
ultimate source or foundation. When, then, God issued the
law denouncing death as the punishment of transgression, and
thereby became pledged to inflict death on account of sin, because
He had threatened to do so. He was merely indicating or ex-
pressing a principle or purpose which was founded on, and re-
sulted from, that inherent perfection which, in a sense, makes
it necessary for Him — although at the same time He acts most
freely — to give to all their due, and of course to inflict merited
punishment upon sin. This is the substance of what is taught by

3 — VOL. II. R

258 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

orthodox divines when they lay down the position that punitive
justice — or, as they usually call it, justitia vindicatrix — is essen-
tial to God. It is a real perfection of His nature, of which He
cannot denude Himself, and which must necessarily regulate or
determine the free acts of His will.

All this is in accordance with the statements of Scripture
and the dictates of right reason ; and these various considerations
combined, fully warrant the general conclusion, that since death
has been denounced as the punishment of sin, there must be
formidable obstacles in the way of sinners being pardoned and
escaping from death, — that if God should pardon sinners, some
provision would be necessary for vindicating His justice and
veracity, and maintaining the honour of His law ; — and that the
only conceivable way in which these objects could be secured, is
by an adequate atonement or satisfaction rendered in the room
and stead of those who had incurred the penalty of the law.
Socinians have very inadequate and erroneous views of the guilt
or demerit of sin, and are thus led to look upon the pardon or
remission of it as a light or easy matter. But it is our duty to
form our conceptions of this subject from what God has made
known to us, and especially from what He has revealed to us as
to the way and manner in which He must and will treat it, or deal
with it. And all that God's word tells us upon this point, viewed
by itself, and apart from the revelation made of an actual provi-
sion for pardoning sin and saving sinners, is fitted to impress upon
us the conviction that sin fully merits, and will certainly receive,
everlasting destruction from God's presence and from the glory
of His power.

Another topic intimately connected with this one of the neces-
sity of an atonement or satisfaction — or rather, forming a part of
it — has been largely discussed in the course of this controversy,
— that, namely, of the character or aspect in which God is to be
regarded in dealing with sinners, with the view either of punishing
them for their sins, or saving them from the punishment they have
merited. Socinians, in order to show that there is no difficulty in
the way of God's pardoning sin, and no necessity for an atonement
or satisfaction for sin, usually represent God as acting, in this
matter, either as a creditor to whom men have become debtors by
sinning, or as a party who has been injured and offended by their
transgressions ; and then infer that, as a creditor may remit a

Sec. II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 259

debt if he chooses, without exacting payment, and as an injured
party may forgive an injury if he chooses, without requiring any
satisfaction, so, in like manner, there is no reason why God may
not forgive men's sins by a mere act of His good pleasure, with-
out any payment or compensation, either personal or vicarious.
There certainly is a foundation in scriptural statements for repre-
senting sins as debts incurred to God and to His law, and also as
injuries inflicted upon Him. These representations, though figura-
tive, are of course intended to convey to us some ideas concerning
the true state of the case ; and they suggest considerations which,
in some other departments of the controversy in regard to the
great doctrine of the atonement, afford strong arguments against
the Socinian views. But the application they make of them to
disprove the necessity of an atonement, is utterly unwarranted.
It is manifestly absurd to press far the resemblance or analogy
between sins on the one hand, and debts or injuries on the other ;
or to draw inferences merely from this resemblance. These are
not the only or the principal aspects in which sins are represented
in Scripture.

The primary or fundamental idea of sin is, that it is a trans-
gression of God's law, — a violation of a rule which He has com-
manded us to observe ; and this, therefore, should be the leading
aspect in which it should be contemplated, when we are con-
sidering how God will deal with it. We exclude none of the
scriptural representations of sin, and none of the scriptural repre-
sentations of God in His dealing with it ; but while we take them
all in, we must give prominence in our conceptions to the most
important and fundamental. And as the essential idea of sin is
not, that it is merely a debt or an injury, but that it is a viola-
tion of God's law, the leading character or aspect in which God
ought to be contemplated when we regard Him as dealing with it,
is not that of a creditor or an injured party, who may remit the
debt or forgive the injury, as he chooses, but that of a lawgiver
and a judge who has promulgated a just and righteous law, pro-
hibiting sin under pain of death, and who is bound, by a regard
to His own perfections, and the interests of holiness throughout
the universe, to take care that His own character be fully vindi-
cated, that the honour of His law be maintained, and that His
moral government be firmly established ; and who, therefore,
cannot pardon sin, unless, in some way or other, full and adequate

260 DOCTKINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

provision be made for securing all these objects. The pardon of
sin, the forgiveness of men who have broken the law and incurred
its penalty, who have done that against which God has denounced
death, seems to have a strong and manifest tendency to frustrate
or counteract all these objects, to stain the glory of the divine
perfections, to bring dishonour upon the divine law, to shake the
stability of God's moral government, and to endanger the interests
of righteousness and holiness throughout the universe. And when,
therefore, we contemplate God not merely as a creditor or as an
injured party, but as the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge, dealing
with the deliberate violation, by His intelligent and responsible
creatures, of a just, and holy, and good law which He had pre-
scribed to them, and which He had sanctioned with the threatened
penalty of death, we cannot conceive it to be possible that He
should pardon them without an adequate atonement or satisfac-
tion ; and we are constrained to conclude that, if forgiveness be
possible at all, it can be only on the footing of the threatened
penalty being endured by another party acting in their room and
stead, and of this vicarious atonement being accepted by God as
satisfying His justice, and answering the claims of His law.*

Whatever evidence there is for the necessity of an atonement
or satisfaction, in order to the pardon of sin, of course confirms
the proof of its truth or reality. It is admitted on all hands, that
God does pardon sinners, — that He exempts them from punish-
ment, receives them into His favour, and admits them to the
enjoyment of eternal blessedness, notwithstanding that they have
sinned and broken His law. If all that we know concerning
God, His government, and law, would lead us to conclude that
He could not do this without an adequate atonement or satisfac-
tion, then we may confidently expect to find that such an atone-
ment has been made, — that such a satisfaction has been rendered.
And, on the other hand, if we have sufficient evidence of the
truth and reality of an atonement as a matter of fact, — and find,
moreover, that this atonement consisted of a provision so very
peculiar and extraordinary as the sufferings and death, in human
nature, of One who was God over all, blessed for evermore, — we
are fully warranted in arguing back from such a fact to its iudis-

" On the necessity of the Atone- I Grotius, De Satis/actione, c.
ment, see G. J. Vossius' Defence of xxix. xxx.

Sec. IIT.] NECESSITY AND NATUKE OF THE ATONEMENT. 261

pensable and absolute necessity, in order to the production of the
intended result ; and then, from an examination of the grounds
and reasons of this established necessity, we may learn much as
to the true nature of this wonderful provision, and the way and
manner in which it is fitted, and was designed, to accomplish its
intended object.

Sec. 3. — The Necessity and Nature of the Atonement.

The subject of the necessity of an atonement, in order to the
pardon of sin, needs to be stated and discussed with considerable
care and caution, as it is one on which there is danger of men
being tempted to indulge in presumptuous speculations, and of
their landing, when they follow out their speculations, in con-
clusions of too absolute and unqualified a kind. Some of its
advocates have adopted a line of argument of which the natural
result would seem to be, absolutely and universally, that sin
cannot be forgiven, and of course that sinners cannot be saved.
A mode of representation and argument about the divine justice,
the principles of the divine moral government, and the divine
law and veracity, which fairly leads to this conclusion, must
of course be erroneous, since it is admitted on all hands, as a
matter of fact, that sin is forgiven, that sinners are pardoned
and saved. This, therefore, is an extreme to be avoided, — this
is a danger to be guarded against. The considerations on which
the advocates of the necessity of an atonement usually found,
derived from the scriptural representations of the divine justice,
law, and veracity, manifestly, and beyond all question, warrant
this position, that there are very serious and formidable obstacles
to the pardon of men who have broken the law and incurred its
penalty; and thus, likewise, point out what is the nature and
ground of these obstacles. The difficulty lies here, that God's
justice and veracity seem to impose upon Him an obligation to
punish sin and to execute His threatenings ; and if this position
can really be established, — and it is the foundation of the alleged
necessity of an atonement or satisfaction, — the practical result
would seem to be, that the law must take its course, and that the
penalty must be inflicted. The argument would thus seem to
prove too much, and of course prove nothing; a consideration
well fitted to impress upon us the necessity of care and caution

262 DOCTKINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

in stating and arguing the question, though certainly not sufficient
to warrant the conclusion which some* have deduced from it, —
namely, that the whole argument commonly brought forward in
support of the necessity of an atonement is unsatisfactory.

I have no doubt that there is truth and soundness in the
argument, when rightly stated and applied. The law which God
has promulgated, threatening death as the punishment of sin,
manifestly throws a very serious obstacle in the way of sin being
pardoned, both because it seems to indicate that God's perfections
require that it be punished, and because the non-infliction of the
penalty threatened seems plainly fitted to lead men to regard the
law and its threatenings with indifference and contempt, — or at
least to foster the conviction, that some imperfection attached to
it as originally promulgated, since it had been found necessary,
in the long run, to change or abrogate it, or at least to abstain
from following it out, and thereby virtually to set it aside. Had
God made no further revelation to men than that of the original
moral law, demanding perfect obedience, with the threatened
penalty of death in the event of transgression ; and were the only
conjecture they could form about their future destiny derived
from the knowledge that they had been placed under this law,
and had exposed themselves to its penalty by sinning, the con-
clusion which alone it would be reasonable for them to adopt,
would be, that they must and would suffer the full penalty they
had incurred by transgression. This is an important position,
and runs directly counter to the whole substance and spirit of the
Socinian views upon this subject. If, in these circumstances, —
and with this position impressed upon their minds, as the only
practical result of all that they then knew upon the subject, —
they were further informed, upon unquestionable authority, that
many sinners — many men who had incurred the penalty of the
law — would, in point of fact, be pardoned and saved ; then the
conclusion which, in right reason, must be deducible from this
information would be, not that the law had been abrogated or
thrown aside, as imperfect or defective, but that some very pecu-
liar and extraordinary provision had been found out and carried
into effect, by which the law might be satisfied and its honour
maintained, while yet those who had incurred its penalty were

* Vide Gilbert on the Cliristian Atonement, Lecture v.

Sec. III.] NECESSITY AND NATUKE OF THE ATONEMENT. 263

forgiven. And if, assuming this to be true or probable, the ques-
tion were asked. What this provision could be? it would either
appear to be an insoluble problem ; or the only thing that could
commend itself to men's reason, although reason might not itself
suggest it, would be something of the nature of an atonement
or satisfaction, by the substitution of another party in the room
of those who had transgressed. The principles of human juris-
prudence, and various incidents in the history of the world, might
justify this as not unreasonable in itself, and fitted to serve some
such purposes as the exigencies of the case seemed to require.

In this way, a certain train of thought, if once suggested,
might be followed out, and shown to be reasonable, — to be in-
vested, at least, with a high degree of probability; and this is just,
in substance, what is commonly advocated by theologians under
the head of the necessity of an atonement. There is, first, the
necessity of maintaining the honour of the law, by the execution
of its threatenings against transgressors ; then there is the necessity
of some provision for maintaining the honour of the law, if these
threatenings are not, in fact, to be executed upon those who have
incurred them ; and then, lastly, there is the investigation of the
question. Of what nature should this provision be ; and what are
the principles by which it must be regulated ? And it is here that
the investigation of the subject of the necessity of an atonement
comes in, to throw some light upon its true nature and hearings.

The examination of the topics usually discussed under the
head of the necessity of an atonement, viewed in connection with
the undoubted truth, that many sinners are, in point of fact,
pardoned and saved, leads us to expect to find some extraordinary
provision made for effecting this result, and thereby gives a
certain measure of antecedent probability to the allegation that
such a provision has been made, and thus tends to confirm some-
what the actual evidence we may have of its truth and reality ;
while the same considerations which lead us to the conclusion
that some such provision was necessary, guide us also to some
inferences as to what it must consist in, and what immediate
purposes it must be fitted to serve. The general substance of
what is thus indicated as necessary, or as to be expected, in the
nature and bearings of the provision, is this, — it must consist with,
and must fully manifest all the perfections of God, and especially
His justice and His hatred of sin ; and it must be fitted to im-

264 DOCTKINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

press right conceptions of the perfection and unchangeableness
of the divine law, and of the danger of transgressing it. God of
course cannot do, or even permit, anything which is fitted, in its
own nature, or has an inherent tendency, to convey erroneous
conceptions of His character or law, of His moral government, or
of the principles which regulate His dealings with His intelligent
creatures ; and assuredly no sinner will ever be saved, except in a
way, and through a provision, in which God's justice. His hatred
of sin, and His determination to maintain the honour of His law,
are as fully exercised and manifested, as they would have been by
the actual infliction of the full penalty which He had threatened.
These perfections and qualities of God must be exercised as well
as manifested, and they must be manifested as well as exercised.
God must always act or regulate His volitions and procedure in
accordance with the perfections and attributes of His nature, in-
dependently of any regard to His creatures, or to the impressions
which they may, in point of fact, entertain with respect to Hira ;
while it is also true that He must ever act in a way which accu-
rately manifests His perfections, or is fitted, in its own nature, to
convey to His creatures correct conceptions of what He is, and
of what are the principles which regulate His dealings with them.
In accordance with these principles. He must, in any provision
for pardoning and saving sinners, both exercise and manifest His
justice and His hatred of sin, — that is, He must act in the way
which these qualities naturally and necessarily lead Him to adopt ;
and He must follow a course which is fitted to manifest Him to
His creatures as really doing all this.

The practical result of these considerations is this, that if a
provision is to be made for removing the obstacles to the pardon
of sinners, — for accomplishing the objects just described, while
yet sinners are saved,' — there is no way in which we can conceive
this to be done, except by some other suitable party taking their
place, and suffering in their room and stead, the penalty they
had merited. Could any such party be found, were he able and
willing to do this, and were he actually to do it, then we can
conceive that in this way God's justice might be satisfied, and
the honour of His law maintained, because in this way the same
views of the divine character, law, and government, and of the
danger and demerit of sin, would be presented, as if sinners
themselves had suffered the penalty in their own persons. All

SEC.ni.] NECESSITY AND NATUEE OF THE ATONEMENT. 265

this, of course, implies that the party interposing in behalf of
sinners should occupy their place, and act in their room and stead,
and that he should bear the penalty which they had incurred ;
because in this way, but in no other, so far as we can form any
conception upon the subject, could the obstacles be removed, and
the necessary objects be effected. And thus the general con-
siderations on which the necessity of an atonement is maintained,
are fitted to impress upon us the conviction, that there must be a
true and real substitution of the party interposing to save sinners,
in the room and stead of those whom he purposes to save, and the
actual endurance by him of the penalty which they had incurred,
and which they must, but for this interpositio'h, have suffered.

A party qualified to interpose in behalf of sinners, in order to
obtain or effect their forgiveness, by suffering in their room and
stead the penalty they had deserved, must possess very peculiar
qualifications indeed. The sinners to be saved were an innume-
rable company ; the penalty which each of them had incurred was
fearful and infinite, even everlasting misery ; and men, of course,
without revelation, are utterly incompetent to form a conception
of any being who might be qualified for this. But the word of
God brings before us One so peculiarly constituted and qualified,
as at once to suggest the idea that He might be able to accom-
plish this, — One who was GoD and man in one person ; One
who, being from eternity God, did in time assume human nature
into personal union with the divine, — who assumed human nature
for the purpose of saving sinners, — who was thus qualified to act
as the substitute of sinners, and to endure suffering in their room ;
while at the same time He was qualified, by His possession of the
divine nature, to give to all that He did and suffered a value and
eflScacy truly infinite, and fully adequate to impart to all He did
a power or virtue fitted to accomplish anything, or everything,
which He might intend to effect.

We formerly had occasion to show that, in regard to a subject
so peculiar and extraordinary as the incarnation, sufferings, and
death of the Son of God, — of One who was a possessor of the
divine nature, — we are warranted in saying that, if these things
really took place, they were, strictly speaking, necessary ; that is,
in other words, that they could not have taken place, if the object
to which they were directed could possibly have been effected in
any other way, or by any other means. And the mere contem-

266 DOCTEINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

plation of the fact of the sufferings and death of such a Being,
independent of the full and specific information given us in
Scripture as to the causes, objects, and consequences of His
death, goes far to establish the truth and reality of His vicarious
atoning sacrifice. When we view Him merely as a man, — but
as a man, of course, perfectly free from sin, immaculately pure
and holy, — we find it to be impossible to account for His suffer-
ings upon the Socinian theory, or upon any theory but that of
His suffering in the room and stead of others, and enduring the
penalty which they had merited.

It is not disputed that sin is, in the case of intelligent and
rational beings, the cause of suffering ; and we cannot conceive
that, under the government of a God of infinite power, and
wisdom, and justice, and goodness, any such Being should be
subjected to suffering, except for sin. The suffering, — the severe
and protracted suffering, — and, finally, the cruel and ignominious
death of Christ, viewing Him merely as a perfectly holy and just
man, are facts the reality of which is universally admitted, and
of which, therefore, all equally are called upon to give some
explanation. The Socinians have no explanation to give of
them. It is repugnant to all right conceptions of the principles
of God's moral government, that He should inflict upon an intel-
ligent and responsible being suffering which is not warranted or
sanctioned by sin as the cause or ground of it, as that which
truly justifies and explains it,— that He should inflict suffering
upon a holy and innocent Being, merely in order that others
may be, in some way or other, benefited by His sufferings. It
is indeed very common, in the administration of God's moral
government, that the sin of one being should be the means or
occasion of bringing suffering upon others ; but then it holds
true, either that these others are also themselves sinners, or that
they are legally liable to all the suffering that has ever been in-
flicted upon them, or permitted to befall them. The peculiarity
in Christ's case is, that while perfectly free from sin, original as
well as actual. He was yet subjected to severe suffering and to a
cruel death ; and this not merely by the permission, but by the
special agency and appointment of God. And this was done,
according to the Socinian hypothesis, merely in order that others
might, in some way or other, derive benefit from the suffering
and death inflicted upon Him. There is here no explanation of

Sec. III.] NECESSITY AND NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT. 267

the admitted facts of the case, that is at all consistent with the
principles of God's moral government. The doctrine of a vica-
rious atonement alone affords anything like an explanation of
these facts ; because, by means of it, we can account for them in
consistency with the principle, that sin — that is, either personal
or imputed — is the cause, the warrant, and the explanation of
suffering. The Scripture assures us that Christ suffered for sin,
— that He died for sin. And even viewing this statement apart
from the fuller and more specific information given us in other
parts of Scripture, with respect to the connection between the sin
of men and the sufferings of the Saviour, and regarding it only
in its relation to the general principles of God's moral govern-
ment, we are warranted in concluding that sin was the impulsive
and meritorious cause of His suffering ; and from this we are
entitled to draw the inference, that as He had no sin of His own.
He must in some way have become involved in, and responsible
for, the sin of others, and that this was the cause or reason why
He was subjected to death. On all these various grounds we
have a great deal of general argument upon the subject of the
atonement, independent of a minute and exact examination of
particular scriptural statements, which tends to confirm its truth,
and to illustrate its general nature and bearing.

We have seen that some of the attributes of God, and some
things we know as to His moral government and law, plainly
suggest to us the convictions, that there are serious obstacles to
the forgiveness of sin, — that if sin is to be forgiven, some extra-
ordinary provision must be made for the exercise and manifesta-
tion of the divine justice and holiness, so that He shall still be,
and appear to be, just and holy, even while pardoning sin and
admitting sinners into the enjoyment of His favour ; for making
His creatures see and feel, that though they are delivered from
the curse of the law which they had broken, that law is, notwith-
standing, of absolute perfection, of unchangeable obligation, and
entitled to all honour and respect. The only thing that has ever
been conceived or suggested at all fitted to accomplish this, is,
that atonement or satisfaction should be made by the endurance
of the penalty of the law in the room and stead of those who
should be pardoned. This seems adapted to effect the object,
and thereby to remove the obstacles, while in no other way can
we conceive it possible that this end can be attained.

268 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

And while the holiness, justice, and veracity of God seem to
require this, there is nothing in His benevolence or placability
that precludes it. The benevolence or placability of God could
produce merely a readiness to forgive and to save sinners, pro-
vided this could be effected in full consistency with all the other
attributes of His nature, all the principles of His moral govern-
ment, and all the objects He was bound to aim at, as the Law-
giver and Governor of the universe ; and these, as we have seen,
throw obstacles in the way of the result being effected. The
actings of God — His actual dealings with His creatures — must
be the result of the combined exercise of all His perfections ; and
He cannot, in any instance, act inconsistently with any one of
them. His benevolence cannot be a mere indiscriminate deter-
mination to confer happiness, and His placability cannot be a
mere indiscriminate determination to forgive those w-ho have
transgressed against Him.

The Scriptures reveal to us a fact of the deepest interest,
and one that ought never to be forgotten or lost sight of when
we are contemplating the principles that regulate God's dealings
with His creatures, — namely, that some of the angels kept not
their first estate, but fell by transgression ; and that no provision
has been made for pardoning and saving them, — no atonement
or satisfaction provided for their sin, — no opportunity of escape
or recovery afforded them. They sinned, or broke God's law ;
and their doom, in consequence, was unchangeably and eternally
fixed. This is a fact, — this was the way in which God dealt with
a portion of His intelligent creatures. Of course He acted in
this case in full accordance with the perfections of His nature
and the principles of His government. We are bound to employ
this fact, which God has revealed to us, as one of the materials
which He has given us for enabling us to know Him. We are
bound to believe, in regard to Him, whatever this fact implies or
establishes, and to refuse to believe whatever it contradicts or
precludes. And it manifestly requires us to believe this at least,
that there is nothing in the essential perfections of God which
affords any sufficient ground for the conclusion that He will cer-
tainly pardon transgressors of His laws, or make any provision
for saving them from the just and legitimate consequences of
their sins. This is abundantly manifest. And this considera-
tion affords good ground to suspect that it was the flat contra-

Sec. hi.] necessity AND NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 269

diction which the scriptural history of the fall and fate of angels
presents to the views of the Socinians, with regard to the prin-
ciples of God's moral government, that has generally led them,
like the Sadducees of old, to maintain that there is neither angel
nor spirit, though there is evidently not the slightest appearance
of unreasonableness in the general doctrine of the existence of
superior spiritual beings, employed by God in accomplishing His
purposes.

As, then, there is nothing in God's benevolence or placability
which affords any certain ground for the conclusion that He must
and will pardon sinners, so there can be nothing in these qualities
inconsistent with His requiring atonement or satisfaction in order
to their forgiveness, while other attributes of His nature seem
plainly to demand this. God's benevolence and placability are
fully manifested in a readiness to bless and to forgive, in so far as
this can be done, in consistency with tlie other attributes of His
nature, and the whole principles of His moral government. And
while there is nothing in His benevolence or placability inconsistent
with His requiring an atonement or satisfaction in order to for-
giveness, it is further evident, that if He Himself should provide
this atonement or satisfaction to His own justice and law, and
be the real author and deviser of all the plans and arrangements
connected with the attainment of the blessed result of forgiveness
and salvation to sinners, a scheme would be presented to us which
would most fully and strikingly manifest the combined glory of
all the divine perfections, — in which He would show Himself to
be the just God, and the justifier of the ungodly, — in which
righteousness and j)eace should meet together, mercy and truth
should embrace each other. And this is the scheme which is
plainly and fully revealed to us in the word of God. Provision is
made for pardoning men's sins and saving their souls, through the
vicarious sufferings and death of One who was God and man in
one person, and who voluntarily agreed to take their place, and to
suffer in their room and stead; thus satisfying divine justice,
complying with the demands of the law by enduring its penalty,
and manifesting most fully the sinfulness and the danger of sin.
But this was done by God Himself, who desired the salvation of
sinners, and determined to effect it; and who, in consequence,
sent His Son into the world to die in man's room and stead, — who
spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. So

270 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

that here we have a scheme for pardoning and saving sinners
which, from its very nature, must be effectual, and which not
only is in full accordance with the perfections of God, but most
gloriously illustrates them all. The apostle says expressly, " that
God set forth His Son to be a propitiatioH through faith in His
blood, to declare His righteousness," or with a view to the de-
monstration of His righteousness ; * and it is true that the shed-
ding of Christ's blood as a propitiation, viewed with reference to
its necessity and proper nature, does declare God's righteousness,
or justice and holiness ; while, viewed in its originating motives
and glorious results, it most fully declares God's marvellous love
to the children of men, and His determination to save sinners
with an everlasting salvation.

Sec. 4. — Objections to the Doctrine of Atonement.

The proper order to be followed in the investigation of this
subject, or indeed of any great scriptural doctrine, is the same as
that which I stated and explained in considering the doctrine of the
Trinity, — namely, that we should first ascertain, by a full and
minute examination of all the scriptural statements bearing upon
the subject, what the Bible teaches regarding it ; and then consider
the general objections that may be adduced against it, taking care
to keep them in their proper place, as objections, and to be satisfied
with showing that they cannot be proved to have any weight ; and
if they should appear to be really relevant and well founded, and
not mere sophisms or difficulties, applying them, as sound reason
dictates, not in the way of reversing the judgment already formed
upon the appropriate evidence as to what it is that the Bible really
teaches, but in the way of rejecting a professed revelation that
teaches doctrines which can, ex hypothesis be conclusively dis-
proved. But as the objections made by Socinians to the doctrine
of the atonement are chiefly connected with some of those general
and abstract topics to which we have already had occasion to
advert, it may be most useful and convenient to notice them noiu,
especially as the consideration of them is fitted, like that of the
necessity of an atonement, already considered, to throw some light
upon the general nature and import of the doctrine itself.

* Rom. iii. 25, 26, ug or Trpo; 'ivhu^iv T^s ^iKXioiTViiyis xuroi/.

Sec. IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT. 271

Many of the objections commonly adduced against the doc-
trine of atonement are mere cavils, — mere exhibitions of un-
warranted presumption, — and are sufficiently disposed of by the
general considerations of the exalted and incomprehensible nature
of the subject itself, and of the great mystery of godliness, God
made manifest in the flesh, on which it is based. These it is un-
necessary to dwell upon, after the exposition of the general prin-
ciples applicable to the investigation of these subjects which we
have already given. Some are founded upon misrepresentations
of the real bearing, objects, and effects of the atonement, especially
in its relation to the character and moral government of God.
Nothing, for instance, is more common than for Socinians to
represent the generally received doctrine of atonement as imply-
ing that God the Father is an inexorable tyrant, who insisted
upon the rigorous execution of the threatenings of the law until
Christ interposed, and by His offering up of Himself satisfied
God's demands, and thereby introduced into the divine mind a
totally different state of feeling in regard to sinners, — the result
of which was, that He pardoned in place of punishing them.
This, of course, is not the doctrine of the atonement, but a mere
caricature of it. Scripture plainly teaches — and the advocates
of an atonement maintain, not only as being perfectly consistent
with their doctrine, but as a constituent part of it — that love to
men, and a desire to save them from ruin, existed eternally in the
divine mind, — resulting from the inherent perfections of God's
nature, — that this love and compassion led Him to devise and
execute a plan of salvation, and to send His Son to save sinners
by offering an atonement for their sins. The atonement, then,
was the consequence, and not the cause, of God's love to men,
and of His desire to save them. It introduced no feeling into
the divine mind which did not exist there before ; though it cer-
tainly removed obstacles which other principles of His nature and
government interposed to the full outflowing of the love and
compassion which existed, and opened up a channel by which
God, in full accordance with, and in glorious illustration of, all
His perfections, miglit bestow upon men pardon and all other
spiritual blessings, and finally eternal life. This is all that can
be meant by the scriptural statements about the turning away
of God's anger and His reconciliation to men, when these are
ascribed to the interposition and atonement of Christ. This is all

272 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

that the defenders of an atonement understand by these state-
ments. There is nothing in their views upon this, or upon any
other subject, that requires them to understand these statements
in any other sense ; and, thus understood, they are fully accordant
both with the generally received doctrine of the atonement, and
with everything else that Scripture teaches concerning God, and
concerning the principles that regulate Plis dealings with men.
This objection, then, though it has been repeated constantly from
the time of Socinus till the present day, is founded wholly upon
a misrepresentation of the doctrine objected to, — a misrepresenta-
tion for which there is no warrant or excuse whatever, except, per-
haps, the declamations of some ignorant and injudicious preachers
of the doctrine, who have striven to represent it in the way they
thought best fitted to impress the popular mind.

The only objections of a general kind to the doctrine of an
atonement that are entitled to any notice are these : First, that
it involves injustice, by representing the innocent as punished in
the room of the guilty, and the guilty thereby escaping ; secondly,
that it is inconsistent with the free grace, or gratuitous favour,
which the Scriptures ascribe to God in the remission of men's
sins ; and, thirdly, that it is fitted to injure the interests of holiness,
or morality. We shall very briefly advert to these in succession,
but without attempting anything like a full discussion of them.

First, It is alleged to be unjust to punish the innocent in the
room of the guilty, and on this ground to allow the transgres-
sors to escape. Now the defenders of the doctrine of atonement
admit that it does assume or imply the state of matters which is
here described, and represented as unjust, — namely, the punish-
ment of the innocent in the room of the guilty. Some of them,
indeed, scruple about the application of the terms punishment and
penal to the sufferings and death of Christ. But this scrupulosity
appears to me to be frivolous and vexatious, resting upon no
sufficient ground, and serving no good purpose. If men, indeed,
begin with defining punishment to mean the infliction of suffering
upon an offender on account of his offence, — thus including the
actual personal demerit of the sufferer in the idea which the word
conveys, — they settle the question of the penality, or penal cha-
racter, of Christ's suffering by the mere definition. In this sense,
of course, Christ's sufferings were not penal. But the definition
is purely arbitrary, and is not required by general usage, which

Sec. IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 273

warrants us in regarding and describing as penal any suffering
inflicted judicially, or in the execution of the provisions of law,
on account of sin. And this arbitrary restriction of the meaning
of the terms punishment and penal is of no use, although some
of those who have recourse to it seem to think so, in warding off
Socinian objections ; — because, in the first place, there is really
nothing in the doctrine of the atonement worth contendino; for,
if it be not true that Christ endured, in the room and stead of
sinners, the suffering which the law demanded of them on ac-
count of their sins, and which, but for His enduring it as their
substitute, they must themselves have endured, — and because, in
the second place, the allegation of injustice applies, with all the
force it has, to the position just stated, whether Christ's suffer-
ings be called penal or not.

With regard to the objection itself, the following are the chief
considerations to be attended to, by the exposition and application
of which it is fully disposed of : First, that, as we have already
had occasion to state and explain in a different connection, the
sufferings and deatli of an innocent person in this matter are
realities which all admit, and which all equally are bound to ex-
plain. Christ's sufferings were as great upon the Socinian as
upon the orthodox theory with regard to their cause and object ;
while our doctrine of His being subjected to suffering because of
the sin of others being imputed to Him, or laid upon Him, brings
the facts of the case into accordance with some generally recog-
nised principles of God's moral government, which, upon the Soci-
nian scheme, is impossible. The injustice, of course, is not alleged
to be in the fact that Christ, an innocent person, was subjected to
so much suffering, — for there remains the same fact upon any
hypothesis, — but in His suffering in the room and stead of sinners,
with the view, and to the effect, of their escaping punishment.

Now we observe, secondly, that this additional circumstance of
His suffering being vicarious and expiatory, — which may be said
to constitute our theory as to the grounds, causes, or objects of His
suffering, — in place of introducing an additional difficulty into
the matter, is the only thing which contributes in any measure to
explain it. And it does contribute in some measure to explain it,
because it can be shown to accord with the ordinary principles of
enlightened reason to maintain, — first, that it is not of the essence
of the idea of punishment, that it must necessarily, and in every

3 — VOL. II. S

274 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

instance, be inflicted upon the very person who has committed
the sin that calls for it ; or, as it is expressed by Grotius, who has
applied the recognised principles of jurisprudence and law to this
subject with great ability : " Notandum est, esse quidem essentials
poense, ut infligatur ob peccatum, sed non item essentiale ei esse
ut infligatur ipsi qui peccavit : " * and, secondly, that substitution
and satisfaction, in the matter of inflicting punishment, are to
some extent recognised in the principles of human jurisprudence,
and in the arrangements of human governments ; while there is
much also, in the analogies of God's providential government of
the world, to sanction them, or to afford answers to the allega-
gations of their injustice.

Thirdly, the transference of penal suffering, or suffering ju-
dicially inflicted in accordance with the provisions of law, from
one party to another, cannot be proved to be universally and in
all cases unjust. No doubt, an act of so peculiar a kind — in-
volving, as it certainly does, a plain deviation from the ordinary
regular course of procedure — requires, in each case, a distinct and
specific ground or cause to warrant it. But there are at least two
cases in which this transference of penal suffering on account of
sin from one party to another is generally recognised as just, and
in which a{ least it can be easily proved that all ground is re-
moved for charging it with injustice. These are, — first, when the
party who is appointed to suffer on account of the sin of another,
has himself become legally liable to a charge of guilt, adequate
to account for all the suffering inflicted ; and, secondly, when he
voluntarily consents to occupy the place of the offender, and to
bear, in his room, the punishment which he had merited. In
these cases, there is manifestly no injustice in the transference
of penal suffering, so far as the parties more immediately affected
are concerned ; and if the general and public ends of punishment
are at the same time fully provided for by the transference, or
notwithstanding the transference, then there is, in these cases, no
injustice of any kind committed.

The second of these ca^es is that which applies to the suffer-
ings and death of Christ. He willingly agreed to stand in the
room and stead of sinners, and to bear the punishment which they

* De Satis/act. c. iv. p. 85. See also Turrettin. De Satis/act. Pars ii.
sec. xxxvi.

Sec. IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 275

had merited. And if there be no injustice generally in Christ —
though perfectly innocent — suffering so much as He endured, and
no injustice in this suffering being penally inflicted upon Him on
account of the sins of others, — His own free consent to occupy
their place and to bear the punishment due to their sins being
interposed, — there can be no injustice in the only other addi-
tional idea involved in our doctrine, — namely, that this suffering,
inflicted upon Him, is appointed and proclaimed as the- ground
or means of exempting the offenders from the punishment they
had deserved ; or, as it is put by Grotius, " Cum per hos modos"
(the cases previously mentioned, the consent of the substitute
being one of them), '' actus factus est licitus, quo minus deinde
ordinetur ad poenam peccati alieni, nihil intercedlt, modo inter
eum qui peccavit et puniendum aliqua sit conjunctio." * The
only parties who would be injured or treated unjustly by this last
feature in the case, are the lawgiver and the community (to apply
the principle to the case of human jurisprudence) ; and if the
honour and authority of the law, and the general interests of the
community, are fully provided for by means of or notwithstand-
ing the transference of the penal infliction, — as we undertake to
prove is the case with respect to the vicarious and expiatory suffer-
ing of Christ, — then the whole ground for the charge of injustice
is taken away.

The second objection is, that the doctrine of atonement or
satisfaction is inconsistent with the scriptural representations of
the gratuitousness of forgiveness, — of the freeness of the grace of
God in pardoning sinners. It is said that God exercises no grace
or free favour in pardoning sin, if He has received full satisfac-
tion for the offences of those whom He pardons. This objection
is not confined to Socinians. They adduce it against the doctrine
of atonement or satisfaction altogether; while Arminians,t and
others who hold the doctrine of universal or indefinite atonement,
adduce it against those higher, stricter, and more accurate views
of substitution and satisfaction with which the doctrine of a defi-
nite or limited atonement stands necessarily connected. When
they are called to deal with this Socinian objection, they usually
admit that the objection is unanswerable, as adduced against the

* Grotius, de Satisfactione, p. 86.

t Vide Limborch, Theol. Christ, lib. iii. c. xxi.

276 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

stricter views of substitution and satisfaction held by most Cal-
vinists; while they contend that it is of no force in opposition to
their modified and more rational views upon this subject, — an
admission by which, as it seems to me, they virtually, in effect
though not in intention, betray the whole cause of the atone-
ment into the hands of the Socinians. As this objection has been
stated and answered in our Confession of Faith, we shall follow
its guidance in making a few observations upon it.

It is there said:* "Christ, by His obedience and death, did
fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did
make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father's justice
in their behalf." Here the doctrine of substitution and satisfac-
tion is fully and explicitly declared in its highest and strictest
sense. But the authors of the Confession were not afraid of being
able to defend, in perfect consistency with this, the free grace, the
gratuitous mercy of God, in justifying, — that is, in pardoning and
accepting sinners. And, accordingly, they go on to say, " Yet,
inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them, and His obe-
dience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely,
not for anytiiing in them, their justification is only of free grace ;
that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glori-
fied in the justification of sinners." Now the grounds here laid
for maintaining the free grace of God in the forgiveness of sinners,
notwithstanding that a full atonement or satisfaction was made
for their transgressions, are two : first, that Christ, the atoner
or satisfier, was given by the Father for them, — that is, that the
Father Himself devised and provided the atonement or satisfac-
tion,— provided it, so to speak, at Plis own cost, — by not sparing
His own Son, but delivering Him up for us all. If this be true,
— if men had no right whatever to such a provision, — If they had
done, and could do, nothing whatever to merit or procure it, —
then this consideration must necessarily render the whole of the
subsequent process based upon it, in its bearing upon men, purely
gratuitous, — altogether of free grace, — unless Indeed, at some sub-
sequent stage, men should be able to do something meritorious and
efficacious for themselves in the matter. But then, secondly, God
not only freely provided the satisfaction, — He likewise, when It
was rendered by Christ, accepted It in the room of all those who

• C. xi. s. 3.

Skc. IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 277

are pardoned, and this, too, freely, or without anything in them,
— that is, without their having done, or being able to do, anything
to merit or procure it, or anything which it involves. Pardon,
therefore, and acceptance are freely or gratuitously given to men,
though they were purchased by Christ, who paid the price of His
precious blood. The scriptural statements about the free grace of
God in pardoning and accepting men, on which the objection is
founded, assert or imply only the gratuitousness of the blessings in
so far as the individuals who ultimately receive them are concerned,
and contain nothing whatever that, either directly or by implica-
tion, denies that they were purchased by Christ, by the full satis-
faction which He rendered in the room and stead of those who
finally partake of them; while the gratuitousness of God's grace in
the matter, viewed as an attribute or quality of His, is fully secured
and manifested by His providing and accepting the satisfaction.

These considerations are amply sufficient to answer the So-
cinian objection about free grace and gratuitous remission, even
on the concession of the strictest views of the substitution and
satisfaction of Christ ; and without dwelling longer on this sub-
ject, I would merely remark in general, that it holds true equally
of the grounds of this Socinian objection, and of the concession
made to it by Arminians and other defenders of universal atone-
ment,— the concession, namely, that it is unanswerable upon the
footing of the stricter views of substitution and satisfaction ; and
indeed, I may say, it holds true generally of the grounds of the
opposition made to the doctrine of definite or limited atonement,
— that they are chiefly based upon the unwarrantable practice of
taking up the different parts or branches of the scheme of re-
demption, as unfolded in Scripture, separately^ and viewing them
in isolation from each other, in place of considering them to-
gether, as parts of one great whole, and in their relation to each
other and to the entire scheme.

The third and last objection to which we proposed to advert is,
that the doctrine of the atonement is fitted to injure the interests
of holiness or morality. The general ground on which this alle-
gation is commonly made is, — that the introduction of an atone-
ment or satisfaction by another party is held to release men from
the obligations of the moral law ; and that the general tendency
of the doctrine is to lead men to be careless and indifferent about
the regulation of their conduct and their growth in holiness.

278 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

This is just the common objection usually made to the whole
scheme of the doctrines of grace ; and in this, as well as in other
applications of it, it can be easily shown that the objection pro-
ceeds upon an erroneous and defective view of the state of the
case, and upon a low and grovelling sense of the motives by
which men are, or should be, animated. The whole extent to
which the atonement or satisfaction of Christ affects men's rela-
tion to the law is this, that men are exempted from paying, in
their own persons, the penalty they had incurred, and are saved
from its infliction by its being borne by another in their room
and stead. Now there is certainly nothing in this which has any
appearance of relaxing the obligation of the law as a rule or
standard which they are bound to follow. There is nothing in this
which has any tendency to convey the impression that God is un-
concerned about the honour of His law, or that we may trifle with
its requirements with impunity. The whole object and tendency
of the doctrine of atonement is to convey the very opposite views
and impressions with regard to the law, — the obligation which it
imposes, and the respect and reverence which are due to it.

In order to form a right conception of the moral tendency of
a doctrine, we must conceive of the case of a man who under-
stands and believes it, — who is practically applying it according
to its true nature and tendency, and living under its influence, —
and then consider how it is fitted to operate upon his character,
motives, and actions. And to suppose that the doctrine of the
atonement, understood, believed, and applied, can lead men to be
careless about regulating their conduct according to God's law,
is to regard them as incapable of being influenced by any other
motive than a concern about their own safety, — to imagine that,
having attained to a position of safety, they must thenceforth be
utterly uninfluenced by anything they have ever learned or heard
about God, and sin, and His law, and eternity, and totally un-
moved by any benefits that have been conferred upon them.
When men adduce this objection against the doctrine of the
atonement, they unconsciously make a manifestation of their own
character and motives. In bringing forward the objection, they
are virtually saying, " If we believed the doctrine of the atone-
ment, we would certainly lead very careless and immoral lives."
And here I have no doubt they are speaking the truth, according
to their present views and motives. But this of course implies a

Sec. IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 279

virtual confession, — first, that any outward decency which their
conduct may at present exhibit, is to be traced solely to the fear
of punishment ; and, secondly, that if they were only secured
against punishment, they would find much greater pleasure in
sin than in holiness, much greater satisfaction in serving the
devil than in serving God ; and that they would never think of
showing any gratitude to Him who had conferred the safety and
deliverance on which they place so much reliance. Socinians
virtually confess all this, with respect to their own present cha-
racter and motives, when they charge tlie doctrine of the atone-
ment with a tendency unfavourable to the interests of morality.
But if men's character and motives are, as they should be, in-
fluenced by the views they have been led to form concerning
God and His law ; if they are capable of being affected by the
contemplation of noble and exalted objects, by admiration of
excellence, and by a sense of thankfulness for benefits, — instead
of being animated solely by a mere desire to secure their own
safety and comfort, — they must find in the doctrine of the atone-
ment— and in the conceptions upon all important subjects which
it is fitted to form — motives amply sufficient to lead them to
hate sin, to fear and love God, to cherish affection and gratitude
towards Him who came in God's name to seek and to save them,
and to set their affections on things above, where He sitteth at
the right hand of God. These are the elements from which
alone — as is proved both by the nature of the case and the ex-
perience of the world — anything like high and pure morality will
ever proceed ; and no position of this nature can be more certain,
than that the believers in the doctrine of the atonement have
done much more in every way to adorn the doctrine of our God
and Saviour, than those who have denied it.

There is, then, no real weight in the objections commonly
adduced against the doctrine of the atonement. Not that there
are not difficulties connected with the subject, which we are
unable fully to solve ; but there is nothing so formidable as to
tempt us to make a very violent effort — and that, certainly, is
necessary — in the way of distorting and perverting Scripture, in
order to get rid of it; and nothing to warrant us in rejecting
the divine authority of the Bible, because it establishes this doc-
trine with such full and abundant evidence. We have already
seen a good deal, in considerations derived from what we know

280 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

concerning the divine character and moral government, fitted to
lead us to believe, by affording at least the strongest probabilities
and presumptions, that the method of an atonement or satisfaction
might be that which M'ould be adopted for pardoning and saving
sinners ; and that this metliod really involves the substitution of
the Son of God in the room and stead of those who are saved
by Him, and His endurance, as their surety and substitute, of
the punishment which they had deserved by their sin. But the
full proof of this great doctrine is to be found only in a minute
and careful examination of the meaning of scriptural statements ;
and in the prosecution of this subject, it has been conclusively
proved that the generally received doctrine of the atonement is
so thoroughly established by Scripture, and so interwoven with
its whole texture, that tliey must stand or fall together ; and that
any man who denies the substance of the common doctrine upon
this subject, would really act a much more honest and rational
part than Socinians generally do, if he would openly deny that
the Bible is to be regarded as the rule of faith, or as entitled to
reverence or respect as a communication from God.

Sec. 5. — Scriptural Evidence for the Atonement.

We cannot enter into anything like an exposition of the Scrip-
ture evidence in support of the commonly received doctrine of
the atonement, the general nature and import of which we have
endeavoured to explain. This evidence is collected from the
whole field of Scripture, and comprehends a great extent and
variety of materials, every branch of which has, upon both sides,
been subjected to a thorough critical investigation. The evidence
bearing upon this great doctrine may be said to comprehend all
that is contained in Scripture upon the subject of sacrifices, from
the commencement of the history of our fallen race ; all that is
said about the nature, causes, and consequences of the sufferings
and death of Christ ; and all that is revealed as to the way and
manner in which men do, in point of fact, obtain or receive the
forgiveness of their sins, or exemption from the penal conse-
quences to which their sins have exposed them. The general ob-
servations which we have already made about the Socinian mode
of dealing with and interpreting Scripture, and the illustrations
we gave of these general observations in their application to the

Sec. v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 281

doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Christ, — the substance
of all that we have stated in the way of explaining both how
scriptural statements should and should not be dealt with, and
what are the principles which, in right reason, though in oppo-
sition to self-styled rationalism, ought to regulate this matter,
— are equally applicable to the subject of the atonement, — are
equally illustrative of the way in which the scriptural statements
bearing upon this point should and should not be treated and
applied. I shall therefore say nothing more on these general
topics. The few observations which I have to make on the
scriptural evidence in support of the doctrine of the atonement,
must be restricted to the object of giving some hints or sugges-
tions as to the way in which this subject ought to be investi-
gated, pointing out some of the leading divisions under which the
evidences may be classed, and the leading points that must be
attended to and kept in view in examining it.

That Christ suffered and died for our good, and in order to
benefit us, — in order that thereby sinners nn'ght be pardoned and
saved, — and that by suifering and dying He has done something
or other intended and fitted to contribute to the accomplishment
of this object, — is of course admitted by all who profess to believe,
in any sense, in the divine origin of the Christian revelation.
And the main question discussed in the investigation of the sub-
ject of the atonement really resolves, as I formerly explained, into
this : What is the relation actually subsisting between the death
of Christ and the forgiveness of men's sins? In what way does
the one bear upon and affect the other? Now the doctrine which
has been generally received in the Christian church upon this
all-important question is this : That Christ, in order to save men
from sin and its consequences, voluntarily took their place, and
suffered and died in their room and stead ; that lie offered up
Himself a sacrifice for them ; that His death was a punishment
inflicted upon Him because they had deserved death; that it was,
in a fair and reasonable sense, the penalty which they had in-
curred; that by suffering death as a penal infliction in their
room and stead, He has satisfied the claims or demands of the
divine justice and the divine law; and by making satisfaction
in their room, has expiated or atoned for their sins, and has thus
procured for them redemption and reconciliation with God.

The scriptural proof of this position overturns at once both

282 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

the Socinian theory, — which restricts the efficacy of Christ's
sufferings and death to their fitness for confirming and estabUsh-
ing truths, and supplying motives and encouragements to repent-
ance and hohness, which are with them the true grounds or
causes of the forgiveness of sinners, — and also the theory com-
monly held by the Arians, which, without including the ideas of
substitution and satisfaction, represents Christ as, in some way
or other, acquiring by His suifering and death a certain influence
with God, which He employs in obtaining for men the forgive-
ness of their sins. The proof of the generally received doctrine
overturns at once both these theories, not by establishing directly
and positively that they are false, — for, as I formerly explained
in the general statement of this subject, they are true so far as
they go, — but by showing that they do not contain the whole
truth ; that they embody only the smallest and least important
part of what Scripture teaches ; and that there are other ideas
fully warranted by Scripture, and absolutely necessary in order
to anything like a complete and correct representation of the
whole Scripture doctrine upon the subject.

One of the first and most obvious considerations that occurs
in directing our attention to the testimony of Scripture upon the
subject is, that neither the Socinian nor the Arian doctrine is re-
concilable with the peculiarity and the immediateness of the con-
nection which the general strain of scriptural language indicates
as subsisting between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of
sinners ; while all this is in fullest harmony with the orthodox
doctrine. If the death of Christ bears upon the forgiveness of
sin only indirectly and remotely through the medium or inter-
vention of the way in which it bears upon men's convictions,
motives, and conduct ; and if it bears upon this result only in a
way in which other causes or influences, and even other things
contained in the history of Christ Himself, do or might equally
bear upon it, — and all this is implied in the denial of the doctrine
of the atonement, — then it seems impossible to explain why in
Scripture such special and peculiar importance is ascribed to
Christ's death in this matter ; why the forgiveness of sin is never
ascribed to any other cause or source of right views or good mo-
tives,— such, for instance, as Christ's teaching, or His resurrec-
tion ; and why the death of Christ and the remission of men's
sins are so constantly represented as most closely and innnediately

Sec. v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 283

connected with each otlier. This constitutes a very strong pre-
sumption in favour of the generally received doctrine upon the
subject ; but in order to establish it thoroughly, it is necessary to
examine carefully and minutely the meaning of the specific state-
ments of Scripture which make known to us the nature, objects,
and consequences of Christ's death, and the actual connection be-
tween, it and the forgiveness of sin. And we would now briefly
indicate the chief heads under which they may be classed, and some
of the principal points to be attended to in the investigation of them.

First, we would notice that there are some important words^
on the true and proper meaning of which the settlement of this
controversy essentially depends, and of which, therefore, the
meaning must be carefully investigated, and, if possible, fully
ascertained. The words to which I refer are such as these :
atonement^ — used frequently in the Old Testament in connection
with the sacrifices, and once {i.e., in our version) in the New
Testament ; hearing and carrying, as applied to sin ; propitiation,
reconciliation, redemption, etc. The words which express these
ideas in the original Hebrew or Greek — such as hattath, asham,
kopher, nasa, sabal, in Hebrew ; and in Greek, tXao) or iXdaKO/jiai,
and its derivatives, iXaa-fio'i and IXaar^ptov, KaraWda-cro) and
KaraXkaji], dyopd^co, XvTpoco, XvTpov, dvriXvTpov, (f)ep(o, and dva-
(f)epQ}j — have all been subjected to a thorough critical investigation
in the course of this controversy ; and no one can be regarded
as well versant in its merits, and able to defend the views which
he has been led to adopt, unless he has examined the meaning
of these words, and can give some account of the philological
grounds on which his conclusions, as to their import, are founded.
Under this head may be also comprehended the different Greek
prepositions which are commonly translated in our version by the
word for, in those statements in which Christ is represented as
dying for sins, and dying for sinners, — viz., Bm, irepl, virep, and
dvTL, — for much manifestly depends upon their true import.

The object to be aimed at in the investigation of these words
is of course to ascertain, by a diligent and careful application
of the right rules and materials, what is their natural, obvious,
ordinary import, as used by the sacred writers, — what sense they
were fitted, and must therefore have been intended, to convey
to those to whom they were originally addressed. It can scarcely
be disputed that these words, in their obvious and ordinary mean-

284 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

ing, being applied to the death of Christ, decidedly support the
generally received doctrine of tlie atonement ; and the substance
of what Socinians, and other opponents of the doctrine, usually
labour to establish in regard to them is, that there are some
grounds for maintaining that they may bear, because they some-
times musthear^ a different sense, — a sense in which they could not
sanction the doctrine of the atonement ; so that the points to be
attended to in this department of the discussion are these : First,
to scrutinize the evidence adduced, that the particular word under
consideration must sometimes be taken in a different sense from
that which it ordinarily bears ; secondly, to see whether, in the
passages in which, if taken in its ordinary sense, it would sanction
the doctrine of the atonement, there be any necessity, or even
warrant, for departing from this ordinary meaning. The proof of
a negative upon eitlier of these two points is quite sufficient to
overturn the Socinian argument, and to leave the passages stand-
ing in full force as proofs of the orthodox doctrine ; while, in
regard to many of the most important passages, the defenders of
that doctrine have not only proved a negative upon these two
questions, — that is, upon one or other of them, — but have further
established, thirdly, that upon strictly critical grounds, the ordi-
nary meaning of the word is that which ought to be there adopted.
But we must proceed to consider and classify statements, as
distinguished from mere words, though these words enter into
most of the important statements upon the subject; and here
I would be disposed to place first those passages in which Christ
is represented as executing the office of a Priest, and as offering
up Himself as a sacrifice. That He is so represented cannot
be disputed. The question is. What ideas with respect to the
nature, objects, and effects of His death was this representation
intended to convey to us? The New Testament statements
concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ are manifestly
connected with, are in some sense taken from, and must be in
some measure interpreted by, the accounts given of the priesthood
and sacrifices under the law, and of the origin and objects of
sacrifices generally, — in so far as they can be regarded as afford-
ing any indication of the principles which regulate the divine
procedure with respect to the forgiveness of sin. This opens up
a wide and interesting field of discussion, — historical and critical,
— comprehending not only all that we learn from Scripture upon

Sec. v.] SCRIPTUKAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 285

the subject, but likewise anything to be gathered from the uni-
versal prevalence of sacrifices among heathen nations, and the
notions which mankind have generally associated with them.

The substance of what is usually contended for upon this topic
by Socinians and other opponents of the doctrine of the atonement
is this, — that animal sacrifices were not originally appointed and
required by God, but were devised and invented by men, — that
they were natural and appropriate expressions of men's sense of
their dependence upon God, their unworthiness of His mercies,
their penitence for their sins, and their obligations to Him for His
goodness ; but that they were not generally understood to involve
or imply any idea of substitution or satisfaction, — of propitiating
God, and of expiating or atoning for sin : that they were intro-
duced by God into the Mosaic economy, because of their general
prevalence, and their capacity of being applied to some useful
purposes of instruction ; but that no additional ideas were then
connected with them beyond what had obtained in substance in
heathen nations : that the Levitical sacrifices were not regarded
as vicarious and propitiating ; and that their influence or effect,
such as it was, was confined to ceremonial, and did not extend
to moral offences : that the statements in the New Testament in
which Christ is represented as officiating as a Priest, and as offer-
ing a sacrifice, are mere allusions of a figurative or metaphorical
kind to the Levitical sacrifices, employed in accommodation to
Jewish notions and habits ; and that, more especially, the minute
and specific statements upon this subject, contained in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, are, as the Improved or Socinian version, pub-
lished about forty years ago, says, characterized by " far-fetched
analogies and inaccurate reasonings."* In opposition to all this,
the defenders of the doctrine of the atonement generally contend
that animal sacrifices were of divine appointment, and were in-
tended by God to symbolize, to represent, and to teach the great
principles which regulate His conduct in regard to sin and sinners,
— that they expressed a confession of sin on the part of the person
by or for whom they were offered, — that they indicated the trans-
ference of his sin, and the punishment it merited, to the victim
offered, the endurance of the punishment by the victim in the
room of the offerer, — and, as the result, the exemption of the offerer

* " The Improved Version," p. 5U. Ed. 1817.

286 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

from the punishment he deserved ; in other words, that they were
vicarious, as implying the substitution of one for the other, and
expiatory or propitiatory, as implying the oblation and the ac-
ceptance of a satisfaction, or compensation, or equivalent for the
offence, and, as a consequence, its remission, — that these ideas,
though intermingled with much error, are plainly enough exhibited
in the notions which prevailed on the subject among heathen
nations, and are fully sanctioned by the statements made with
respect to the nature, objects, and consequences of the divinely
appointed sacrifices of the Mosaic economy ; — that these were
evidently vicarious and expiatory, — that they were appointed to be
offered chiefly for ceremonial, but also for some moral offences,
considered as violations of the ceremonial law, though of course
they could not of themselves really expiate or atone for the moral,
but only the ceremonial, guilt of this latter class, — that they really
expiated or removed ceremonial offences, or were accepted as a
ground or reason for exempting men from the punishment in-
curred by the violation or neglect of the provisions of the Jewish
theocracy, while their bearing upon moral offences could be only
symbolical or typical ; — that, in place of the New Testament
statements about the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ being
merely figurative allusions to the Levitical sacrifices, the whole
institution of sacrifices, and the place which they occupied in the
Mosaic economy, were regulated and determined by a regard to
the one sacrifice of Christ, — that they were intended to direct
men's faith to it, — that they embodied and represented the prin-
ciples on which its efficacy depended, and should therefore be em-
ployed in illustrating its true nature and bearings ; while every-
thing to be learned from them in regard to it, is fitted to impress
upon us the conviction that it was vicarious and expiatory, — that
is, presented and accepted in the room and stead of others, and
thus effecting or procuring their reconciliation to God, and their
exemption from the penal consequences of their sins. All this
has been maintained, and all this has been establislied, by the de-
fenders of 'the doctrine of the atonemfent ; and with the principal
grounds on which these various positions rest, and on which they
can be defended from the objections of adversaries, and from
the opposite views taken by them upon these points, all students
of Scripture ought to possess some acquaintance. The most im-
portant and fundamental of the various topics comprehended in

Sec. v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 287

this wide field of discussion, are involved in the settlement of
these two questions, — namely, first, What was the character,
object, and immediate effect of the Levitical sacrifices ? were thej
vicarious and expiatory, or not 1 and secondly, What is the true
relation between the scriptural statements concerning the Levitical
sacrifices and those concerning the sacrifice of Christ ? and what
light does anything we know concerning the former throw upon
the statements concerning the latter? These are questions pre-
senting materials for much interesting discussion ; and it is our
duty to seek to possess some knowledge of the facts and argu-
ments by which they are to be decided.

Secondly, another important class of passages consists of those
which bear directly and immediately upon the true nature and the
immediate object of Christ's death. There are some general con-
siderations derived from Scripture, to which we have already had
occasion to refer, which afford good ground for certain inferences
upon this subject. If it was the death, in human nature, of One
who was also a possessor of the divine nature, as Scripture plainly
teaches, then it must possess a nature, character, and tendency,
altogether peculiar and extraordinary ; and must be fitted, and
have been intended, to effect results altogether beyond the range
of what could have been accomplished by anything that is com-
petent to any creature, — results directly related to infinity and
eternity. If it was the death of One who had no sin of His own,
who was perfectly innocent and holy, we are constrained to con-
clude that it must have been inflicted upon account of the sins of
others, whose punishment He agreed to bear. A similar con-
clusion has been deduced from some of the actual features of
Christ's sufferings as described in Scripture, especially from His
agony in the garden and His desertion upon the cross ; circum-
stances which it is not easy to explain, if His sufferings were
merely those of a martyr and an exemplar, — and which naturally
suggest the propriety of ascribing to them a very different cha-
racter and object, and are obviously fitted to lead us to conceive
of Him as enduring the punishment of sin, inflicted by God, in
the execution of the provisions of His holy law.

But the class of passages to which we now refer, are those
which contain distinct and specific information as to the real
nature, character, and immediate object of His sufferings and
death ; such as those which assure us that He suffered and died

288 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

for sin and for sinners ; that He bore our sins, and took them
away ; that He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised
for our iniquities ; tliat He suffered for sin, the just for the un-
just ; that He was made sin for us ; that Pie was made a curse
for us, etc. Such statements as these abound in Scripture ; and
the question is, What ideas are they fitted — and therefore, as we
must beHeve, intended — to convey to us concerning the true nature
and character of Christ's death, and its relation to and bearing
upon our sin, and the forgiveness of it ? Now, if we attend to
these statements, and, instead of being satisfied with vague and
indefinite conceptions of their import, seek to reahze their mean-
ing, and to understand distinctly what is their true sense and
signification, we must be constrained to conclude that, if they
have any meaning, they were intended to impress upon us the con-
victions,— that our sin was the procuring cause of Christ's death,
that which rendered His death necessary, and actually brought it
about, — that He consented to occupy the place of sinners, and to
bear the punishment which they had deserved and incurred, —
that, in consequence, their guilt, in the sense of legal answerable-
ness or liability to punishment (reatus), was transferred to and
laid on Him ; so that He suffered, in their room and stead, the
punishment whicli they had deserved and incurred, and which,
but for His enduring it, they must have suffered in their own
persons. And as this is the natural and obvious meaning of the
scriptural statements, — that which, as a matter of course, they
would convey to any one who would attend to them, and seek to
realize clearly and definitely the ideas which they are fitted to
express, — so it is just the meaning which, after all the learning,
ingenuity, and skill of adversaries have been exerted in obscuring
and perverting them, comes out more palpably and certainly than
before, as the result of the most searching critical investigation.

Suffering and dying for us means, according to the Socinians,
merely suffering and dying on our account, for our good, with a
view to onr being benefited by it. It is true that Christ died for
us in this sense ; but this is not the whole of what the scriptural
statements upon the subject are fitted to convey. It can be shown
that they naturally and properly express the idea that He died in
our room and stead, and thus constrain us to admit the concep-
tion of His substitution for us, or of His being put in our place,
and being made answerable for us. The prepositions translated

Sec. v.] SCRIPTUKAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 289

for — when persons, toe or sinners, are the objects of the relation
indicated — are 8ca, vtrep, and avTi. Now it is admitted that
hia naturally and properly means, on our account, or for our
benefit, and does not of itself suggest anything else. It is ad-
mitted, further, that vTrep may mean, on our account, as well as
in our room, though the latter is its more ordinary signification,
— that which it most readily suggests, — and that which, in many
cases, the connection shows to be the only one that is admissible.
But it is contended that avriy which is also employed for this
purpose, means, and can mean only, in this connection, instead
of, or in the room of, as denoting the substitution of one party
in place of another. This does not warrant us in holding that,
wherever Sta and virep are employed, they, too, must imply sub-
stitution of one for another, since it is also true that Christ died
for our benefit, or on our account ; but it does warrant us to
assert that the ordinary meaning of 8ta, and the meaning which
may sometimes be assigned to virep, — namely, on account of, —
does not bring out the whole of what the Scripture teaches with
respect to the relation subsisting between the death of Christ
and those for whose benefit it was intended.

The prepositions employed when sins, and not persons, are
represented as the causes or objects of Christ's suffering or dying,
are 84a, irrrep, and ircpi', and it is contended and proved, that,
according to Scripture, what the proper ordinary meaning of
dying for or on account of sin — 8ta, vTrep, irepi, afiaprcavj or
ajiapTLa^i — is this, — that the sin spoken of was that which pro-
cured and merited tlie death, so that the death was a penal
infliction on account of the sin which caused it, or for which it
was endured.* Bearing or carrying sin, it can be proved, has,
for its ordinary meaning in Scripture, being made, or becoming
legally answerable for sin, and, in consequence, enduring its
punishment. There are indeed some other words used in Scrip-
ture in regard to this matter, which are somewhat more indeter-
minate in their meaning, and cannot be proved of themselves to
import more than the Socinian sense of bearing sin, — namely,
taking it away, or generally removing it and its consequences,
such as nasa in the Old Testament, and alpco in the New ; but

* The impulsive or meritorious and I c. i. ; Stillingfleet on Christ's Satisfac-
final cause. See Grotius, De Hatisfact. \ tion.

3 — VOL. II. T

290 DOCTRINE OP THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

sahal in the Old Testament, and ^epm or ava^epm in the New,
have no such indefiniteness of meaning. They include, indeed,
the idea of taking away or removing, which the Socinians regard
as the whole of their import ; but it can be proved that their
proper meaning is to bear or carry, and thus, hy hearing or carry-
ing, to remove or take away. As to the statements, that Christ
was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities,
that He was made sin and made a curse for us, and others of
similar import, there is really nothing adduced, possessed even of
plausibiHty, against their having the meaning which they naturally
and properly convey, — namely, that our liability to punishment
for sin was transferred to Him, and that He, in consequence, en-
dured in our room and stead what we had deserved and incurred.

Thirdly, The third and last class of passages consists of those
which describe the effects or results of Christ's death, — the con-
sequences which have flowed from it to men in their relation to
God, and to His law, which they had broken. These may be said
to be, chiefly, so far as our present subject is concerned, recon-
ciliation to God, — the expiation of sin, — and the redemption of
sinners, — KaraWaj^, ikaap^o^;, \vTpo)ai<;. These are all ascribed
in Scripture to the death of Ciirist ; and there are two questions
that naturally arise to be discussed in regard to them, though, in
the very brief remarks we can make upon them, the two questions
may be answered together: First, What do they mean? or what
is the nature of the changes effected upon men's condition which
they express? Secondly, What light is cast by the nature of
these changes or effects, when once ascertained, upon the true
character of the death of Christ, — and more especially upon the
great question, whether or not it was endured in our room and
stead, and thus made satisfaction for our sins ?

Reconciliation naturally and ordinarily implies that two parties,
who were formerly at variance and enmity with each other, have
been brought into a state of harmony and friendship ; and if this
reconciliation between God and man was effected, as Scripture
assures us it was, by the death of Christ, then the fair inference
would seem to be, that His death had removed obstacles which
previously stood in the way of the existence or the manifestation of
friendship between them, — had made it, in some way or other, fully
accordant with the principles, the interests, or the inclinations of
both parties to return to a state of friendly intercourse. We

Sec. v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 291

need not repeat, in order to guard against misconstruction, what
was formerly explained — in considering objections to the doctrine
of the atonement founded on misrepresentations about the eternal
and unchaniTeable love of God to men — about the atonement
being the consequence and not the cause of God's love, and about
its introducing no feeling into the divine mind which did not exist
there before. If this be true, as it certainly is, and if it be also
true that the death of Christ is represented as propitiating God to
men, — as turning away His wrath from them, — and as effecting
their restoration to His favour, — then it follows plainly that it must
have removed obstacles to the manifestation of His love, and
opened up a channel for His actual bestowing upon them tokens
of His kindness ; and if these obstacles consisted in the necessity
of exercising and manifesting His justice, and maintaining unim-
paired the honour of His law, which men had broken, then the
way or manner in which the death of Christ operated in effecting
a reconciliation between God and man, must have been by its
satisfying God's justice, and answering the demands of His law.
Socinians, indeed, allege that it is not said in Scripture that God
was reconciled to men by the death of Christ, but only that men
were reconciled to God, or that God in this way reconciled men
to Himself; and that the only way in which the death of Christ
operated in effecting this reconciliation, was by its affording
motives and encouragements to men to repent and turn to Him.
It is admitted that it is not expressly said in Scripture that the
death of Christ reconciled God to men ; but then it is contended,
and can be easily proved, that statements of equivalent import
to this occur ; and more especially, that it is in accordance with
Scripture usage, in the application of the word reconcile^ that
those who are said to be reconciled, are represented, not as laying
aside their enmity against the other party, but as aiming at and
succeeding in getting Him to lay aside His righteous enmity against
them ; and this general use of the word, applied to the case under
consideration, leaves the argument for a real atonement, deduced
from the asserted effect of Christ's death upon the reconciliation
of God and man untouched, in all its strength and cogency.

The next leading effect ascribed to the death of Christ is
that it expiates sin, as expressed by the word IXdaKOfiaL and its
derivatives. The statements in which these words occur, bring
out somewhat more explicitly the effect of Christ's sufferings and

292 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

death upon men's relation to God and to His law, and thus at
once confirm and illustrate what is said about its bearing upon
reconciliation. It can be fully established that the true and
proper meaning of these words is, to propitiate, or to make pro-
pitious one who had been righteously offended by transgression, so
that the transgression is no longer regarded as a reason for mani-
festing displeasure or inflicting punishment. Christ is repeatedly*
described in Scripture as being a propitiation for sins, tX.ao-/io9
Trepl afxaprmv; and we are also told that His humiliation and
His execution of the priestly office were directed to the object of
making propitiation for, or expiating the sins of, the people, — et<?
TO cXdaK€cr6at, ra'i dfjbapTLa<;.f This is translated in our version,
to make reconciliation for the sins of the people ; but it would
be more correctly rendered, to propitiate by expiating their sins.
And in another passage,^ where He is also described as a propi-
tiation,— tkacxTrjpLov^ — this is expressly connected with His blood
as an object of faith, and with the result of the remission of sins ;
it being a great principle regulating God's dealings with sinners,
that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. If
Christ was thus a propitiation, or propitiated God to men who
had sinned against Him, and if He effected this through His
humiliation and blood-shedding, it could be only by its being an
atonement for their sins, or expiatory of their sins, — that is, by
its presenting or affording some adequate cause or reason why the
punishment of their sins should not be inflicted upon them ; and
thisj according to every idea suggested in Scripture concerning
expiation or atonement, or expiatory sacrifices, — sacrifices which,
as is often said in the Old Testament, make atonement, — could
be only by its being the endurance in their room and stead of
the punishment they had incurred.

The general ideas expressed by some of these leading words,
as descriptive of the effect of Christ's death upon men's condition
and relation to God, are well stated by Dr. John Pye Smith in
this way: In enumerating the glorious effects of Christ's sacrifice,
he specifies as one, " The legal reconciliation of God and all
sinners who cordially receive the gospel method of salvation ; "
and then he adds, "This all-important idea is presented under
two aspects: First, Expiation or atonement. This denotes the

* 1 John u. 2 ; iv. 10. f Heb. ii. 17. J Rom. iu. 25.

Sec. v.] SCRTPTUEAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 293

doing of something which shall furnish a just ground or reason
in a system of judicial administration, for pardoning a convicted
offender. Secondly, Propitiation : anything which shall have the
property of disposing, inclining, or causing the judicial authority
to admit the expiation ; that is, to assent to it as a valid reason
for pardoning the offender."*

The third leading result ascribed to Christ's death, in its
bearing upon the condition of sinners in relation to God and
His law, is redemption, — Xurpooo-t?, or aTroXvrpwo-t?. As we are
assured in Scripture, both that Christ died for sins and that He
died for sinners, so we are told, both that sins and sinners were
redeemed by Him, by His blood, by His giving Himself for
them ; though the idea most frequently indicated is, that, by
dying for sinners, He redeemed or purchased them. He is
described as giving His life — which, of course, is the same thing
as His submitting to death — as a Xvrpov, and as giving Himself
as an avrikinpov for men. Now there is no doubt about the
true, proper, ordinary meaning of these words : \vrpov means a
ransom price, — a price paid in order to secure the deliverance of
a debtor or a captive; and avrlXvrpov means the same thing, with
a more explicit indication — the effect of the prefixed preposition
— of the idea of commutation, compensation, or substitution, — that
is, of the price being paid in the room and stead of something
else for which it is substituted. Christ's blood or death, then, is
frequently and explicitly represented in Scripture as a ransom
price paid by Him, in order to effect, and actually effecting, the
deliverance of men from sin, and from the injurious effects of sin
upon their relation to God and their eternal welfare. And if
there be any truth or reality in this representation, — if anything
is meant by it at all corresponding to the words in which it is
conveyed to us, — then it is manifest that, taken in connection
with what we know from Scripture as to men's natural state or
condition, and the real nature of the difficulties or obstacles that
stood in the way of their deliverance, it shuts us iip to the con-
clusion that Christ, in suffering and dying, acted in the room
and stead of sinners ; and by enduring, as their substitute, the
punishment which they had deserved, rendered satisfaction to
the justice and law of God in their behalf.

* Four Discourses ; Dis. ii. pp. 136-7. Ed. 1828.

294 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

These, then, are the leading divisions under which the exten-
sive and varied mass of Scripture evidence for the great doctrine
of the atonement may be classed : first, the general character of
Christ's sufferings and death, as being the offering up of Himself
as a sacrifice ; secondly, the true nature and immediate object
of His death, as implying that He took the place of sinners, and
in all His sufferings endured the punishment which they had
merited; and, thirdly and finally, the bearing or effect of His
death upon their relation to God and His law, — every feature
and aspect of the resulting effect, or of the change produced,
affording a strong confirmation of His having acted as their sub-
stitute, and rendered satisfaction to divine justice for their sins.

Sec. 6. — Socinian View of the Atonement.

Every position laid down by the defenders of the doctrine has
been controverted, and every one of them has been successfully
established. It is necessary to know something, not only of the
grounds of the leading scriptural positions on which this great
doctrine is based, but also of the objections by which they have
been assailed, and of the way in which these objections have been
answered. There are, however, two or three general observations
on the method commonly adopted by the Socinians in dealing
with the Scripture evidence in reference to this doctrine, which
it may be worth while to bring under notice.

Of course they feel it to be necessary to attempt to explain, in
consistency with the denial of the atonement, the special import-
ance ascribed in Scripture to the death of Christ, as distinguished
from everything else recorded regarding Him, and the peculiarity
and immediateness of the connection plainly indicated between
His death and the forgiveness of men's sins. Now the substance
of what they allege upon this point really amounts to this, and to
nothing more, — that though, in reality, no such special importance
attached to the death of Christ, and no such peculiar and imme-
diate connection subsisted between it and the forgiveness of sin,
as the doctrine of an atonement supposes, yet that reasons can be
assigned why the sacred writers might naturally enough have been
led to speak of it in a way that is fitted, at first sight, to convey
these impressions. This is no misrepresentation of their doctrine,
but a fair statement of what it involves, as could very easily be

Sec. VI.] SOCINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 295

established. Of course they are fond of enlarging upon the
advantages resulting from Christ's death as an example of excel-
lence in Him, and of love to men, and as confirming the divinity
of His mission and the truth of His doctrines ; while they
usually "come at last, in discussing this point, to the admission,
that the main ground why such special importance is assigned to
it in Scripture is, because it was necessary as a step to His resur-
rection, which was intended to be the great proof of the divinity
of His mission, and thus the main ground of our faith or reliance
upon what He has made known to us, — a train of thought which
assumes throughout, what may be regarded as the fundamental
principle of Socinianism, — namely, that the sole object of Christ's
mission was to reveal and establish the will of God.

We have no interest and no inclination to underrate the im-
portance of the death of Christ, either in itself, or as connected
with His resurrection, viewed as a testimony to truth, — as a
ground of faith or conviction ; but we cannot admit that any view
of this sort accounts fully for the very special and paramount
importance which the Scripture everywhere assigns to it, and still
less for the peculiar and immediate connection which it everywhere
indicates as subsisting between the suffering, the death, the blood-
shedding of Christ, and the forgiveness of men's sins. Dr. Lant
Carpenter, one of the most respectable, and, upon the whole, most
candid and least offensive of modern Unitarians, after enumerat-
ing a variety of circumstances in the condition of the apostles,
and in the sentiments and associations it tended to produce, which
might not unnaturally have led them to represent the connection
between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sin as peculiar
and immediate, though it was not so (for that is really the sub-
stance of the matter), triumphantly asks : " Can we wonder that
the apostles sometimes referred to this event all the blessings of
the gospel, and represented it under those figures with which their
religious and national peculiarities so abundantly supplied them ? " *
The Unitarian position, then, upon this point, is this : Though the
apostles sometimes represented the connection subsisting between
the death of Christ and the blessings of salvation as peculiar and
immediate, we do not believe that any such peculiar and imrae-

* Unitarianism the Doctrine of the I Grounds of Unitarianism, 2d edition
Gospel; or a View of the Scriptural \ (1811), P. iii. c. viii. pp. 306, 307.

296 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

diate connection existed ; because we can imagine some circum-
stances and influences that might not improbably have led them
to speak in this way, without supposing that they really believed
or meant to teach the existence of such a connection. Our posi-
tion is this : The apostles speak of the sufferings and death of
Christ, and of the blessings of salvation, in such a way as is
fitted, and was therefore intended, to teach us that the connection
between them was peculiar and immediate, and not indirect and
remote, through the intervention of the efficacy of His sufferings
and death, in establishing truths and influencing our motives ; and
therefore we believe this upon their authority. It is surely mani-
fest that the only honest way of coming to a decision between
these two positions, is to take up and settle the previous question,
— namely, whether or not the apostles were directly commissioned
to reveal the will of God ? whether or not the Bible is to be re-
ceived as our rule of faith ?

This leads us to notice the liberal use which the Socinians
make — in distorting and perverting the statements of Scripture
upon this subject — of the allegation that the language employed
by the sacred writers is very figurative, and is not to be literally
understood. This is an allegation which they make and apply
very largely in their whole system of scriptural interpretation ;
but in regard to no subject do they make so wide and sweeping a
use of it, as in dealing with the doctrine of the atonement, and
more especially when they come to assail what they call " the far-
fetched analogies and inaccurate reasonings " of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. This topic opens up a wide field of general discussion,
on which we do not mean to enter. We notice merely the abuse
which they make of it, in order to guard against the impression
which they labour to convey, though they do not venture formally
and openly to maintain it, — namely, that an allegation that a
statement is figurative or metaphorical, if admitted or proved to
be in any sense or to any extent true, virtually involves in total
obscurity or uncertainty the meaning or import it was intended
to convey. This is really the substance of what they must main-
tain, in order or make their favourite allegation of any real ser-
vice to their cause.

A great portion of ordinary language may be said to be in
some sense figurative ; and one cause of this is, that most of the
words employed to describe mental states or operations are taken

Sec. VI.] SOCINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 297

from material objects. But this does not prevent the language,
though figurative or metaphorical, from conveying to us precise
and definite ideas.* Figures are, for the most part, taken from
actual resemblances or analog-ies ; and even when the figurative
use of words and phrases has not been fully established, and can-
not, in consequence, be directly ascertained by the ordinary usus
loquendi (though, in most languages, this is not to any considerable
extent the case), still the resemblances and analogies on which
the figure is founded may usually be traced, and thus the idea in-
tended to be conveyed may be distinctly apprehended, — due care,
of course, being taken to apply aright any information we may
possess concerning the real nature of the subject and its actual
qualities and relations. Christ is described as the Lamb of God,
that taketh away the sins of the world. There is no doubt some-
thing figurative here ; but there can be no doubt also that it was
intended, as it is fitted, to convey to us the ideas that there is
some resemblance between Clirist and a lamb, and a lamb, more-
over, viewed as a sacrificial victim ; and that Christ exerted some
influence upon the remission of the sins of men analogous to that
which the sacrifice of a lamb exerted in regard to the remission
of the sins to which such sacrifices had a respect. What this
influence or relation in both cases was, must be learned from a
fair application of all that we know concerning the nature of the
case in both instances, and the specific information we have re-
ceived regarding them. And the fair result of a careful and
impartial examination of all the evidence bearing upon these
points is this, that the language of Scripture is fitted to impress
upon us the convictions, — that the sacrifice of a lamb under the
Mosaic economy was really vicarious, and was really expiatory of
the sins to which it had a respect, — and that the sacrifice of Christ,
in like manner, was really vicarious ; that is, that it was presented
in the room and stead of men, and that it really expiated or atoned
for their sins, — that it was offered and accepted, as furnishing an
adequate ground or reason why their sins should not be punished
as they had deserved.

There is a great deal said in Scripture about the sufferings and
death of Christ, and their relations — viewed both in their causes
and their consequences — to men's sins. This language is partly

* Watson's Listitutes, P. ii. c. xxi. Works, vol. xi. p. 87.

298 DOCTKINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

figurative ; but, Jirst^ there is no proof or evidence that it is wholly
so ; and, secondly, there is no great difficulty in ascertaining, with
precision and certainty, what ideas the figures, that are employed
in representing and illustrating them, are fitted, and were in-
tended, to convey. And if the statements of Scripture upon this
point, viewed in combination and as a whole, were not intended
to convey to us the ideas that Christ, by His sufferings and death,
offered a true and real sacrifice, — that He presented it in the room
and stead of men, and by doing so, suffered the punishment which
they had deserved, and thereby expiated their guilt, and saved
them from punishment, — then the Bible can be regarded in no other
light than as a series of unintelligible riddles, fitted not to instruct,
but to perplex and to mock, men.* Here, as in the case of other
doctrines, Socinians argue with some plausibility only when they are
dealing with single passages, or particular classes of passages, but
keeping out of view, or throwing into the background, the general
mass of Scripture evidence bearing upon the whole subject. When
we take a conjunct view of the whole body of Scripture statements,
manifestly intended to make known to us the nature, causes, and
consequences of Christ's death, literal and figurative, — view them
in combination with each other, — and fairly estimate what they are
fitted to teach, there is no good ground for doubt as to the general
conclusions which we should feel ourselves constrained to adopt.

The evidence in support of the expiatory and vicarious charac-
ter of Christ's death is not only peculiarly varied and abundant ;
but we have, in this case, peculiar advantages for ascertaining
the truth as to its intended import, in the special means we possess
of knowing how the statements of the apostles would be, in point
of fact, understood by those to whom they were originally ad-
dressed. We must, of course, believe that the apostles used lan-
guage fitted and intended to be understood by those whom they
addressed, — not accommodated to their errors and prejudices, in
accordance with what is usually called the theory of accommoda-
tion ; for this, integrity, not to speak of inspiration, precludes, —
but fitted to convey correct impressions, if understood in the sense
in which they must have known that it would be understood, —
for this integrity requires. And it can be easily proved that

* Hodges' Sermon on the Nature of the Atonement ; Spruce Street Lec-
tures, pp. 159, 160.

Sec. VI.] SOCINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 299

both the Jews and the Gentiles, with the notions they generally-
entertained about sacrifices, — their nature, object, and effects, —
must have understood the apostolic statements about Christ's
sacrifice of Himself, just as they have been generally understood
ever since by the great body of the Christian church. It is, then,
a mere evasion of the argument, to dispose of such a body of proof
by the vague allegation of the language being figurative or meta-
phorical, as if it could be shown that all the scriptural statements
upon the subject are figurative ; and, further, that the figures
employed convey no meaning whatever, — or a meaning which
cannot be fully ascertained, — or a meaning different from that
assigned to them by the defenders of the atonement. Not only
can none of these positions be proved, but all of them can be dis-
proved ; and therefore the evidence for this great and funda-
mental doctrine stands untouched and unassailable.*

There is only one of the more specific methods adopted by
Socinians to evade and pervert the testimony of Scripture upon
this subject to which I shall particularly advert ; but it is one of
pretty extensive application. It may be described, in general, as
consisting in this, — that they labour to show that most of the
scriptural statements about the sufferings and death of Christ are
descriptive merely of certain results, without indicating anything
of the means, or intermediate process, by which the results are
effected. This will be best understood by giving two or three
examples. With reference to the connection between the sin of
man and the death of Christ, in its causes, they usually maintain
that sin was only the final cause of Christ's death, — in no proper
sense its impulsive, procuring cause, and in no sense whatever its
meritorious cause. By sin being the final cause of Christ's death,
they mean that it was the end or object of His death to save men
from sin, — which is certainly true ; but then they deny that we
have any further information given us in Scripture respecting
any causal connection between our sin and Christ's death ; while
we contend that the scriptural representations warrant us in
asserting, not only that Christ died in order to save men from sin,
but further, that man's sin was the procuring cause of His death,
— that which rendered His death necessary, and really brought

* Dr. Owen on the Trinity and Satisfaction. Works, vol. x.'p. 532. (Rus-
sell's edition.)

300 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

it to pass, — and did so by meriting or deserving that we should
die. Christ dying for sinners, according to the Socinians, means
merely His dying for their sakes, on their account, — for their
good, — in order to benefit them. This we admit to be true, — to
be implied in the scriptural statements upon the subject ; but we
contend further, that these statements, in their genuine import,
teach that He died in our room and stead, and that by dying in
our room and stead as the means. He eifected our good as the
result. Bearing sin, according to the Socinians, means merely
taking it away or removing it, and is thus descriptive merely of
the result of His interposition, — in that, in consequence, men are
not actually subjected to what their sin deserved ; whereas we
contend that its true and proper meaning is, that He assumed or
had laid upon Him the guilt, or legal answerableness, or legal
liability to punishment, on account of our sins, and endured this
punishment; and that by thus hearing our sin as a means, He
effected the end or result of bearing it away or removing it, so
that it no longer lies upon us, to subject us to punishment.
According to our view of the import of the expression, it implies
that our sin was on Christ, — was laid on Him, — and that thus He
bore it, in order to hear it away ; whereas, on the Socinian inter-
pretation, our sin never was on Him, and He bore it away, or
accomplished the result of freeing us from the effects of it, with-
out ever having borne it. Redemption, according to the Socinians,
just means deliverance as an end aimed at, and result effected,
without indicating anything as to the means by which it was
accomplished ; and it is not disputed that, in some instances, the
word redeem is used in this wide and general sense. But we
contend that its proper ordinary meaning is to effect deliverance
as an end, through the means of a price or ransom paid ; and we
undertake to show, not only from the proper ordinary meaning
of the word itself, — from which there is no sufficient reason for
deviating, — but from the whole connections in which it occurs,
and especially the specification of the actual price or ransom paid,
that it ought, in its application to the death of Christ, to be
understood as descriptive of the means by which the result of
deliverance is effected, as well as the actual deliverance itself. Of
course, in each case the question as to the true meaning of the
statements must be determined by a diligent and impartial appli-
cation of philological and critical rules and materials ; but this

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 301

brief statement of these distinctions may perhaps be of some use
in explaining the true state of the question upon the Scripture
evidence, — in guarding against Socinian sophisms and evasions,
— and in indicating what are some of the leading points to be
attended to in the investigation of this subject.

Sec. 7. — Arminian View of the Atonement.

In introducing the subject of atonement, I proposed to con-
sider, first, the reality and general nature of the vicarious atone-
ment or satisfaction of Christ, as it has been generally held by
the Christian church in opposition to the Socinians; secondly,
the peculiarities of the doctrine commonly held by Arminians
upon this subject, as connected with the other leading features of
their scheme of theology ; and, thirdly, the peculiar views of those
who hold Calvinistic doctrines upon most other points, but upon
this concur with, or approximate to, the views of the Arminians.
The first of these topics I have already examined ; I now proceed
to advert to the second, — namely, the peculiarities of the Armi-
nian doctrine upon the subject of the atonement or satisfaction of
Christ. I do not mean, however, to dwell at any great length
upon this second head, because most of the topics that might be
discussed under it recur again, with some modifications, under the
third head ; and as they are more dangerous there, because of the
large amount of truth in connection with which they are held, I
propose then to consider them somewhat more fully.

The leading peculiarity of the doctrine of the Arminians upon
this subject is usually regarded as consisting in this, — that they
believe in a universal or unlimited atonement, or teach that Christ
died and offered up an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of all rhen,
— that is, of all the individuals of the human race, without dis-
tinction or exception. This doctrine was the subject of the second
of the five articles — the first being on predestination — which were
discussed and condemned in the Synod of Dort. Their leading
tenets upon this subject, as given in to the Synod of Dort, and
condemned there, were these, — first, that the price of redemption,
which Christ offered to His Father, is not only in and of itself
sufficient for redeeming the whole human race, but that, accord-
ing to the decree, the will, and the grace of God the Father, it
was actually paid for all and every man ; and, secondly, that Christ,

302

DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

by the merit of His death, has so far reconciled God his Father
to the whole human race, as that the Father, on account of His
merit, was able, consistently with His justice and veracity, and
actually willed or resolved, to enter into a new covenant of grace
with sinful men exposed to condemnation. Now these statements,
it will be observed, direct our thoughts, not only to the extent, but
also to the nature, the objects, and the effects of the atonement,
or of the payment of the ransom price of men's deliverance and
salvation. Their doctrine upon both these points was also com-
prehended by themselves in one proposition in this way : " Christ
died for all and every man, and did so in this sense and to this
effect, — that He obtained, or procured (impetravit), for all men
by His death reconciliation and the forgiveness of their sins ; but
upon this condition, that none actually possess and enjoy this for-
giveness of sins except believers." * The substance of the doc-
trine is this, — first, that Christ's death, in the purpose of God
and in His own intention in submitting to it, was directed to the
benefit of all men, equally and alike ; secondly, that its only pro-
per and direct effect was to enable and incline God to enter into
a new covenant with them upon more favourable terms than, but
for Christ's dying for them, would have been granted ; and that
this is virtually the same thing as His procuring or obtaining for
all men reconciliation with God and the forgiveness of their sins.
Now this is plainly a scheme of doctrine which is throughout
consistent with itself. And more especially it is manifest, that if
the atonement was universal or unlimited, — if it was intended to
benefit all men, — its proper nature and immediate object must have
been, in substance, just what the Arminians represent it to have
been ; or, more generally, the doctrine of the universality of the
atonement must materially affect men's views of its nature and
immediate object. Arminians generally concur with other sec-
tions of the Christian church in maintaining the doctrine of a vica-
rious and expiatory atonement, in opposition to the Socinians ;
and of course they defend the general ideas of substitution and
satisfaction, — that is, of Christ's having put Himself in our place,

* Acta Synodalia Remonxtrantium,
P. ii. p. 280. Amesii Coronis ad Col-
lationem Haf/icnsem, p. 90. Nichols'
Calvinism andArininiduism Compared,
pp. 114, 115. Statomeut and liefu-

tation of the Views of Arminius him-
self upon this subject, in Witsius, De
Giconom. Feed. lib. ii. c. vii. sec. ix,
Owen's Display of Arminianism, c ix.
and X.

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 303

and satisfied divine justice in our room and stead ; but when they
come more minutely and particularly to explain what substitution
and satisfaction mean, and in what way the atonement of Christ
is connected with, and bears upon, the forgiveness and salvation of
men individually, then differences of no small importance come
out between them and those who have more scriptural views of
the scheme of divine truth in general, and then is manifested a
considerable tendency on their part to dilute or explain away what
seems to be the natural import of the terms commonly employed in
relation to this matter. It may not be easy to determine whether
their doctrine of the universality of the atonement produced their
modified and indefinite views of its proper nature and immediate
object, or whether certain defective and erroneous views upon this
latter point led them to assert its universality. But certain it is,
that their doctrine with respect to its nature, and their doctrine
with respect to its extent, are intimately connected together, — the
one naturally leading to and producing the other. As the doc-
trine of the universality of the atonement professes to be founded
upon, and derived from, Scripture statements directly bearing
upon the point, and is certainly not destitute of an appearance of
Scripture support, the probability is, that this was the nrpwrov
i/reuSo?, — the primary or originating error, — which produced their
erroneous views in regard to the nature and immediate object of
the atonement. And this is confirmed by the fact that the ablest
Arminian writers, such as Curcellaeus and Limborch,* have been
accustomed to urge tlie universality of the atonement as a dis-
tinct and independent argument against the Calvinistic doctrine
of election, — that is, they undertake to prove directly from Scrip-
ture that Christ died for all men ; and then, having proved this,
they draw from it the inference that it was impossible that there
could have been from eternity an election of some men to life,
and a reprobation, or preterition, or passing by of others, — an
argument which, it appears to me, the Calvinistic defenders of
an unlimited atonement are not well able to grapple with.

But whatever may have been the state of this matter histori-
cally, it is quite plain that there is, and must be, a very close
connection between men's views with regard to the nature and

* Curcellsei Instit. Relig. Christ, lib. I Theologia Christiana, lib. iv. c. iii.
vi. c. iv. pp. 356, 357. Limborch, | p. 318.

304 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

immediate object and effect, and with regard to the extent, of the
atonement. If Christ died and gave Himself for those who, in
point of fact, are never pardoned, sanctified, and saved, the object
and immediate effects of His submitting to death must be very
different from what they at least may be, if His sacrifice was
offered and accepted only for those who are ultimately saved. The
nature of His sacrifice, and the whole of the relation in which it
stands to spiritual blessings and eternal life, must, in the one case,
be essentially different from what it may be in the other. We think
it of some importance to illustrate this position ; and therefore —
reserving the consideration of the alleged universality of the atone-
ment, as a distinct and independent topic, till we come to the third
head of our proposed division of the whole subject — we will now
attempt to explain some of the peculiar views, usually held more or
less explicitly by Arminians, in regard to the nature, object, and
immediate effects of the atonement, as illustrative of the tendency
and results of their doctrine of its universality ; remarking, however,
that a very considerable difference of sentiment upon this subject
— and indeed in regard to some other fundamental doctrines of
Christianity, such as original sin and regeneration by the Holy
Spirit — prevails among those who may be classed under the general
head of Arminians, because they all deny what are called the pecu-
liarities of Calvinism; and that the representations about to be made
apply, in their full extent, only to the more Pelagian Arminians.
First, it is very common among Arminians to deny what
orthodox divines have generally contended for, as we have ex-
plained, under the head of the necessity of an atonement. The
reason of this must be sufficiently manifest from what has already
been said upon this subject, especially in illustrating the connec-
tion between the necessity of an atonement, and its true nature,
as implying substitution and satisfaction. If an atonement was
not necessary, because God's perfections, moral government, and
law required it as a preliminary to pardon or forgiveness, then
any provision — no matter what might be its proper nature and
peculiar character — might serve the purpose, might be sufficient
for accomplishing the intended object; and of course substitu-
tion and satisfaction might not be required, excepting only in
some very vague and indefinite sense, that might admit to a large
extent of being modified or explained away. Still Arminians
commonly admit, in a general sense, what the Socinians deny, —

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 305

namelj, that the divine perfections, governmentj and law did
interpose obstacles in the way of the forgiveness and acceptance
of sinners, and that these obstacles the atonement of Christ has
removed or taken out of the way ; while some of them maintain
the necessity of an atonement upon grounds similar to those laid
down by orthodox divines. Secondly, many Arminians deny that
Christ's sufferings and death were a properly penal infliction, and
that He endured the penalty due to men's sins ; or at least have
great scruples about the propriety of describing it by this language.
They admit, of course, that He suffered something in our room and
stead, and if they did not, they would wholly concur with the
Socinians; but they commonly, at least in modern times, deny
either, first, that what He suffered was properly punishment, or,
secondly, that it was the same as, or equivalent to, the penalty
which men had deserved by their transgressions. These notions
plainly indicate a disposition to modify and explain away the real
import of scriptural statements, and involve a descent to the very
borders of Socinianism. If Christ suffered at all as oixr substi-
tute,— if He suffered in our room and stead, — then it is manifest
that, as He had no sin of His own for which to suffer, His suffer-
ing must have been penal ; that is, it must have been inflicted
judicially, in the execution of the provisions of a law which de-
manded punishment against men's sins. And, as we formerly
explained, it is mere trifling to attempt, as is often done, to settle
this question about the penality of Christ's sufferings, by laying
down beforehand a definition of punishment, which includes in
it, as a constituent element, personal demerit, or a consciousness
of personal demerit, on the part of the individual suffering.

The most important question, however, connected with this
department of the subject, is not whether what Christ suffered
was a punishment, or properly penal, but whether it was the
penalty which the law had denounced against sin, and to which
sinners, therefore, are justly exposed. Now, upon this point,
there ai'e three different modes of statement which have been
adopted and defended by different classes of divines, who all
concur in maintaining the doctrine of the atonement against the
Socinians. Some contend that the only accurate and exact way
of expressing and embodying the doctrine of Scripture upon the
subject, is to say that Christ suffered the very penalty — the same
thing viewed legally and judicially — which the law had denounced
3 — VOL. II. U

306 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

against sin, and which we had incurred by transgression. Others
think that the full import of the Scripture doctrine is expressed,
and that the general scope and spirit of its statements upon this
subject are more accurately conveyed, by maintaining that Christ
did not suffer the very penalty, — the same penalty which sinners
had incurred, — but that He suffered what was a full equivalent,
or an adequate compensation for it, — that His suffering was
virtually as much as men deserved, though not the same. While
others, again, object to both these statements, and think that the
whole of what Scripture teaches upon this point is embodied in
the position, that what Christ suffered was a substitute for the
penalty which we had incurred.

Dr. Owen zealously contends for the first of these positions,
and attaches much importance to the distinction between Christ
having suffered or paid the same penalty as we had incurred, and
His having suffered or paid only an equivalent, or as much as we
had deserved ; or, as He expresses it, between His suffering or
paying the idem and the tantundem. He lays down the doctrine
which he maintained upon this point against Grotius and Baxter
in this way : " That the punishment which our Saviour underwent
was the same that the law required of us ; God relaxing His law
as to the persons suffering, but not as to the penalty suffered." *
There are, however, divines of the strictest orthodoxy, and of the
highest eminence, who have not attached the same importance
to the distinction between the idem and the tantundem, and who
have thought that the ti'ue import of the Scripture doctrine upon
the subject is most correctly brought out by saying that what
Christ suffered was a full equivalent, or an adequate compensa-
tion, for the penalty men had incurred. Mastricht, for instance,
whose system of theology is eminently distinguished for its ability,
clearness, and accuracy, formally argues against the death of
Christ being solutio " proprie sic dicta, qua id pra3cis<!; pra3statur,
quod est in obligatione;"f and contends that "reatus toUitur satis-
factione, qud non idem prsecisfe, quod est in obligatione, creditori
prsestatur; sed tantundem, sen equivalens." And Turretine J seems,
upon the whole, to agree with him, or rather, to conjoin the two

* Works (Russell's edition), vol. v. I Thcoloqia, lib. v. c. xviii. pp. 613,
p. 594. _ 1 014, 6i5, OIG, 625.

t Mastricht, Theoretico - Practica % Turrettiu. de Satis/actionc, Pars

ix. sec. iii.

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 307

ideas together, as being both true, though in somewhat different
respects, and as not essentially differing from each other. He has
not, indeed, so far as I remember, formally discussed the precise
question about the idem and the tantundem, on M'hich Owen and
Mastricht have taken opposite sides; but in discussing the Socinian
argument, — that Christ did not make a true and real satisfaction
for our sins, because He did not in fact pay what was due to God
by us, and especially because He suffered only temporal, while
we had incurred eternal, death, — he meets the major proposition
by asserting that there might be a true and proper satisfaction,
though the same thing was not paid which was due, provided it
was a full equivalent in weight and value, "etsi non idem, mode
tantundem habeatur, sufficit;" while he meets also the minor pro-
position of the Socinian argument, by asserting that Christ did
pay what was due by us ; the same, not of course in its adjuncts
and circumstances, but in its substance, — His suffering, though
temporary in duration, being, because of the infinite dignity of
His person, properly infinite in weight or value as a penal in-
fliction, and thus substantially identical, in the eye of justice and
law, with the eternal punishment which sinners had deserved.

The difference, then, between the idem and the tantundem in
this matter does not seem to be quite so important as Dr. Owen
believed. The difference between the temporary suffering of one
being and the eternal sufferings of millions of other beings is so
great, as to their outward aspects and adjuncts, or accompanying
circumstances, as to make it not very unreasonable that men
should hesitate about calling them the same thing. And the
Scripture doctrine of the substitution and satisfaction of Christ
seems to be fully brought out, if His death be represented as a
full equivalent or an adequate compensation for the sins of men,
— as being not only a penal infliction, but an infliction of such
weight and value intrinsically, as to be a real and full compliance
with the demands of the law denouncing death against sin ; and
thus to exhaust in substance the position which Scripture plainly
teaches, — namely, that He bore our sins, — that is, that He suf-
fered the punishment which we had deserved, and must otherwise
have borne. The danger of admitting that Christ suffered the
tantundem, and not the idem, an equivalent or compensation, and
not the same thing which we had deserved, — lies here, that men
are very apt to dilute or explain away the idea of equivalency or

308 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

compensation, and to reduce it to anything or nothing ; and
experience has fully illustrated this tendency. The sounder Ar-
minians have usually admitted that Christ's death was an equi-
valent or compensation for men's sins ; but they have generally
scrupled, or refused to call it a full equivalent, — an adequate com-
pensation. The reason of this is obvious enough : for this latter
idea naturally suggests that it must be certainly effectual for all
its intended objects, — that it must be part of a great scheme, fitted
and designed to accomplish certain definite results ; whereas,
under the more vague and general idea of mere equivalency or
compensation, which may be understood in a very wide sense,
they can, with some plausibility, retain their notions of its univer-
sality, its indefiniteness, and its unsettled and uncertain applica-
tion. Accordingly, in modern times, they have usually rejected
even the idea of equivalency in any proper sense, and adopted the
third of the positions formerly mentioned, — namely, that Christ
neither suffered the same penalty which we had deserved, nor
what was an equivalent for it, but merely what was a substitute
for the penalty. This idea leaves them abundant scope for dilut-
ing, or attenuating to any extent, the substitution and satisfaction
which they still continue, in words, to ascribe to Christ. And
accordingly it is usually adopted by most of those, in our own day,
— whether Arminians or professing Calvinists in other respects, —
who hold the doctrine of a universal or unlimited atonement.

The word equivalent, when honestly used, naturally suggested
the idea, not indeed of precise identity, but still of substantial
sameness, at least of adequacy or competency, when tried by some
definite and understood standard, to serve the same purposes, or to
effect the same objects ; whereas a substitute for the penalty may
be almost anything whatever. A substitute may indeed be an
equivalent, even a full equivalent, or anything short of, or diffe-
rent from, what is precisely identical ; but it may also and equally
describe something of which nothing like equivalency or substan-
tial identity can be predicated. And hence the danger, to which
I formerly referred, as apprehended by Dr. Owen and others, of
departing from the idea and the phraseology of strict and precise
identity. If it was not the same thing, it must have been a
substitute for it ; and as even a full equivalent, which implies
substantial identity, may be classed under the general name
of substitute, men's ideas are thus gradually and imperceptibly

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 309

lowered, until at length, by the dexterous use of vague and inde-
finite language, they are cheated out of very distinct and definite
conceptions of the real nature of Christ's death, in its relation to
the law which they had broken, and which He magnified and made
honourable by fulfilling all its demands, — being made a curse, in
our room, that He might redeem us from the curse of the law.

This idea of Christ having suffered, not the penalty we had
deserved and incurred, nor an equivalent for it, but merely a substi-
tute for it, — that is, anything which God might choose to accept
instead of it, loithout there being any standard by which its adequacy
for its professed object could be tried or tested^ — has been much
dwelt upon, in the present day, by the advocates of a universal
atonement, even among those who disclaim Arminianism in other
respects. It is, however, an Arminian notion ; nay, it is disclaimed
by many of the sounder Arminians, and has been generally and
justly regarded by Calvinists as amounting to what is practically
little else than a denial of the atonement altogether. Limborch,
in explaining the doctrine of the old Arminians upon this subject,
which he represents as the golden mean between the Socinian and
the Calvinistic views, makes the difference between them to consist
chiefly in this, that Calvinists represented Christ as suffering the
same penalty which men had deserved, or a full equivalent for it,
which of course implies substantial sameness; while Arminians re-
garded Him as merely suffering something or other for them, which
might serve as a substitute for the penalty, and might stand " vice
poense," as he says, in the room or stead of the penalty. He felt,
however, that this might very probably be regarded as amounting
to a virtual denial that Christ had suffered, or been punished, in
our room, and thus as approximating to Socinianism ; and accord-
ingly he proposes this objection to his own doctrine, and answers
it, " An non ergo nostro loco punitus est?" And his answer is
this : " Eadem quam nos meriti eramus specie poense non punitum
esse jam ostendinius," — a statement plainly implying an admis-
sion of what indeed is manifestly undeniable, — namely, that the
natural, obvious meaning of His suffering punishment in our room
is, that He endured, either literally and precisely, or at least sub-
stantially and equivalently, the penalty which we had incurred ;
and that this must be held to be its meaning, unless it could be
proved, as he professed it had been, to be false. And then he
adds : " Potest tamen certo sensu pro nobis dici punitus, quatenus

310

DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

poenam vicarlam, pro benepladito dlvino sibi imponendam, hoc est,
afflictionem, quge poense vicem sustinuit, in se suscepit."* This
sense of poena vicaria — as meaning, not a punishment endured
in the room and stead of others who liad deserved it, but merely
suffering endured, vice poence, in the room of punishment, or as
a substitute for the penalty — is fully adopted by the modern
defenders of universal atonement, Beman, Jenkyn, etc.f

We insist, of course, that the Scripture statements about the
connection between our sin and our pardon on the one hand, and
the death of Christ on the other, are not fully accounted for — are
not sufficiently explained and exhausted — by the position that
Christ suffered something which might be called a substitute for
the penalty, and which God might choose to accept instead of it ;
and that they are to be taken in what Limborch, by plain impli-
cation, admits, and no one can deny, to be their natural, ordinary
meaning, as importing that He had inflicted upon Him, and
actually endured, what may be fairly and honestly called the
penalty we had deserved and incurred. Limborch rejects this
interpretation, because he thinks he has proved that it is not
accordant with the facts of the case ; that is, that in fact Christ
did not suffer the penalty which the law had denounced against
us. His proofs are these : First, that Christ did not suffer eternal
death, which was what we had merited by transgression ; and,
secondly, that if He had suffered the penalty, or a full equiva-
lent, in our room, there would be no grace or gratuitousness on
God's part in forgiving men's sins. The last of these arguments
we have already considered and refuted, when we mentioned that
it was commonly adduced, not only by Socinians, against satisfac-
tion in any sense, but also by the advocates of universal atone-
ment, in opposition to those more strict and proper views of the
nature of substitution and satisfaction, which are plainly incon-
sistent with their doctrine. And there is no more weigiit in the
other argument, that Christ's sufferings were only temporary,
while those we had incurred by sin were eternal. This may be,
as we have already intimated, a good reason for adopting the
phraseology of full equivalency, instead of precise identity, — the

* Limborch, Theol. Christ, lib. iii.
c. xxii. p. 271. Ed. 1686.

t See Dr. Alexander's Treatise on
Justification, p. 28 ; Presbyterian
Tracts, vol. ii.

Sec. YII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 311

tantundem instead of the idem. But it furnislies no disproof of
substantial sameness, viewed with reference to the demands of
law. The law denounced and demanded death, and Christ died
for us. The law denounced eternal sufferinij against an innume-
rable multitude, who are in fact saved from ruin, and admitted
to everlasting blessedness. But the temporary suffering and
death, in human nature, of One who was at the same time a
j)osses3or of the divine nature, was, in point of weight and value,
as a compliance with the provisions of the law, a satisfaction to
its demands, a testimony to its infinite excellence and unchangeable
obligation, a full equivalent for all.

I have dwelt the longer upon this point, because the views
which, as we have seen, were held by the more Pelagian or Soci-
niarizing portion of the Arminians, — as they are often called by
the orthodox divines of the seventeenth century, — are the very
same in substance as those which, in the present day, are advo-
cated, more or less openly, even by the Calvinistic defenders of
a universal atonement. They involve, I think, a most unwar-
rantable dilution or explaining away of the true meaning of the
scriptural statements concerning the nature, causes, and objects
of Christ's death ; and in place of occupying the golden mean
between the Socinian and the true Calvinistic doctrines, make a
decided approximation to the former. It may be proper to men-
tion, before leaving this topic, that this Arminian notion of the
sufferings and death of Christ being merely a substitute for the
penalty which sinners had deserved, — as implying something less
than an equivalent or compensation, or at least than a. full equiva-
lent, an adequate compensation, — is commonly discussed by ortho-
dox divines, under the name of acceptilatio, — a law term, which is
employed to express a nominal, fictitious, or illusory payment.*

A third peculiarity of the opinions commonly held by Ar-
minians on this subject is, that they regard the appointment and
acceptance of Christ's satisfaction as involving a relaxation or
virtual abrogation of the divine law. This necessarily follows
from what has been already explained. As Christ did not suffer
the penalty of the law, or a full equivalent for it, but only a sub-
stitute for the penalty, — which God, of His good pleasure, agreed

* Turrettin. de Satis/act. Pars viii. I Marclcii Compendium^ torn. iii. p.
sec. X. ; De Moor, Commentarius in \ 1083.

312 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

to accept, in the room or stead of the endurance of it by sinners
who had incurred it, — the law was in no sense executed or en-
forced, but was virtually abrogated or set aside ; whereas orthodox
divines contend that the law was executed or enforced, the penalty
which it denounced having been endured. It is of great import-
ance, in order to our right understanding of the whole scheme of
divine truth, that we should have correct conceptions and impres-
sions of the perfection and unchangeableness of the law which
God originally gave to man; as this doctrine, when rightly applied,
tends equally to exclude the opposite extremes of Neonomianism,
which is a necessary constituent element of Arminianism, and of
Antinomianism, which is only an abuse or perversion of Calvin-
ism, and for which Calvinism is in no way responsible. It is very
easy to prove, as a general doctrine, that the moral law, as origi-
nally given by God to man, was, and must have been, perfect in
its nature and requirements, and unchangeable in its obligations ;
and that God could never thereafter, without denying Himself,
do anything which fairly implied, or was fitted to convey, the im-
pression that this law was defective in any respect, — was too rigid
in its requirements, or too severe in its sanctions, or could stand
in need either of derogation or abrogation. And yet the denial
or disregard of this important principle — which indeed is, and
can be, fully admitted and applied only by Calvinists — is at the
root of much of the error that prevails in some important de-
partments of theology.

If the penalty of the law, which men had incurred, was not
endured, while yet sinners were pardoned and saved, then the law
was not honoured, but trampled on, in their salvation, and is thus
proved to have been defective and mutable. Calvinists, of course,
admit that in the pardon of sinners there does take place what
may be called, in a wide and improper sense, a relaxation of the
law ; since the penalty is not in fact inflicted upon those who had
transgressed, but upon another ; that is, they admit a relaxation
in regard to the persons suffering, but not in regard to the penalty
threatened and suffered. This is indeed the grand peculiarity,
— the mysterious, but most glorious peculiarity, of the Christian
scheme, — that which may be said to constitute the doctrine of the
atonement or satisfaction of Christ, that a substitute was provided,
and that His substitution was accepted. But there is nothing in
this which casts any dishonour upon the law, or appears to convict

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 313

if of imperfection and mutability. On the contrary, it is in every
way fitted to impress upon us its absolute perfection and unchange-
able obligation. In no proper sense does it involve a relaxation or
abrogation of the law. The relaxation or abrogation of a law is
opposed to, and precludes, compliance or fulfilment ; whereas here
there is compliance or fulfilment, as to the essence or substance of
the matter, — namely, the infliction and endurance of the penalty, or,
what is virtually the same thing, a full equivalent, an adequate com-
pensation for it, and a relaxation only in regard to a circumstance
or adjunct, namely, the particular person or persons who suffer it.
If an atonement or satisfaction be denied, then the law is
wholly abrogated or set aside, and of course is dishonoured by
being convicted of imperfection and mutability in the salvation of
sinners. And even when the idea of atonement or satisfaction is
in some sense admitted, there is no real respect or honour shown
to the law, because no compliance, in any fair and honest sense,
with its demands, — no fulfilment of its exactions, — nothing to
give us any impression of its perfection and unchangeableness in
its general character, tendency, and object, unless this atonement
or satisfaction was really the endurance of the penalty which the
law denounced, or a full equivalent for it, — something which could
serve the same purposes, with reference to the great ends of law
and moral government, by impressing the same views of God's
character, of His law, of sin, and of the principles that regulate
His dealings with His creatures, as the actual punishment of all
who had offended. Many of the human race perish, and are
subjected to everlasting misery ; and in them, of course, the law
which denounced death as the punishment of sin, is enforced and
executed. The rest are pardoned, and saved. But in their case,
too, the law is not abrogated, but executed ; because the penalty
which they had incurred is inflicted and suffered, — is borne, not
indeed by them, in their own persons, but by another, acting as
their substitute, and suffering in their room and stead. The pro-
vision of a substitute, who should endure the penalty due by those
who were to be pardoned and saved, is a great, glorious, and mys-
terious act of extra-legal mercy and compassion ; it is that mar-
vellous provision, by which sinners are saved, in consistency with
the perfections of God and the principles of His moral govern-
ment. But in every other step in the process, the law is enforced,
and its provisions are fully complied with ; for the work of the

314 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

Substitute is accepted as an adequate ground for pardoning and
saving those for whom He acted, just because it was the endur-
ance of what they had deserved, — of all that the law did or could
demand of them. And in this way we see, and should ever con-
template with adoring and grateful wonder, not an abrogation or
relaxation, but an execution and enforcement of the law, even in
the forgiveness and salvation of those who had broken its require-
ments, and became subject to its curse.*

A fourth peculiarity of the views of the Arminians upon the
subject of the atonement is this, that they represent its leading,
proper, direct effect to be, to enable God, consistently with His
justice and veracity, to enter into a new covenant with men, in
which more favourable terms are proposed to them than before,
and under which pardon and reconciliation are conveyed to all
men conditionally, — upon the conditions of faith and repentance,
— conditions which they are able to fulfil. This doctrine — which
is, in substance, what is commonly called Neonomianism, or the
scheme which represents the gospel as a new or modified law,
offering pardon and eternal life to all men upon lower or easier
terms — rests upon, as its basis, and requires for its full exposi-
tion, a more complete view of the Arminian scheme of theology
than merely their doctrine upon the subject of the atonement.
It involves, of course, a denial of the scriptural and Calvinistic
doctrines of predestination, and of the eritire depravity of human
nature ; but we have to do with it at present in a more limited
aspect, as a part of their doctrine of the atonement. And here,
the substance of the charge which we adduce against it is just
this, — that, like the doctrine of the Socinians, it explains away
the true and fair import of the scriptural statements with respect
to the nature of the connection between the sacrificial death of
Christ and the forgiveness of men's sins, and represents that
connection as much more remote and indirect than the Scripture
does. It is true that the Scripture represents Christ, by His death,
as ratifying and sealing a new and better covenant, of which He
was the Surety or Sponsor ; but then this covenant was not based
upon the abrogation or relaxation of the original law, and the
introduction of a new one, which offered life upon easier terms, —
upon more favourable conditions, as the Arminian scheme repre-

* Turrcttin. de Satis/act. Pcors viii, sec. x.

Sec. VII.] AEMINIAN VIEW OP THE ATONEMENT. 315

sents the matter. On the contrary, as we have seen, it implied
that the original law was enforced and executed ; Christ, as the
Surety or Sponsor of Plis people, faljilling the conditions of this
new covenant^ just by complying ivith the demands of the original
laio, — by enduring, in their room and stead, the penalty which
it denounced. The Scripture represents, not only the ultimate
object, but the direct and immediate effect, of Christ's sacrifice
of Himself, to be to save sinners, — that is, to effect, procure,
provide everything which their salvation implies or requires, —
everything which is necessary to accomplish it ; whereas, upon
the Arminian theory, the salvation of sinners, as an actual result,
was only the idtimate object of His death, its immediate effect
being merely, as they are accustomed to express it, to make men
— all men — salvabiles, or capable of being saved, and not to save
them, or to secure their salvation. His death, upon their system,
really effected nothing, but only enabled God to do thereafter
whatever He pleased, in the way of conferring — upon any condi-
tions which He might now think proper to require — forgivepess,
acceptance, and eternal life. Accordingly, they are accustomed
to describe its immediate object and effect as being merely this,
— that it removed legal obstacles, and opened a door to God's
bestowing, and men's receiving, pardon and salvation ; and they
consider it as effecting this, not because it was a compliance with
the demands of the law, in the room and stead of those who were
to be benefited by it, but merely because it was a great display
of hatred to sin and of love to righteousness ; after having made
which, God could safely, or without any danger of conveying
erroneous impressions of Plis character, bestow pardon and spiri-
tual blessings upon all alike who were willing to accept of them.

This representation is in substance true, so far as it goes ; but,
like the common Socinian doctrine, it falls short of embodying
the whole truth which Scripture teaches upon the subject, and of
bringing it out so fully and distinctly as Scripture affords us
materials for doing. We are not told in Scripture that Christ's
death removed legal obstacles, and opened a door for men's pardon
and salvation ; but we admit that the statements are true, — that
the death of Christ did this, because it seems faii'ly involved in,
or deducible from, the scriptural statements which warrant us in
believing the more precise and definite doctrine, — that, by dying in
our room, Christ satisfied the divine justice and law, and thereby

316 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

reconciled us to God. There were obstacles in the way of God's
bestowing upon men pardon and salvation, and these required to
be removed; the door was shut, and it needed to be opened.
From the position which the death of Christ occupied in the
scheme of salvation, and from the general effects ascribed to it,
we feel that we are fully warranted in representing it as removing
the obstacles and opening the door. But we contend that this
does not by any means exhaust the Scripture account of its proper
objects and effects, which represents it as more directly and
immediately efficacious in accomplishing men's redemption from
sin, and their enjoyment of God's favour. The Scripture not
only indicates a closer and more direct connection as subsisting
between the death of Christ and the actual pardon and salvation
of men than the Arminian doctrine admits of ; but it also, as we
have seen, explains the connection between its proper nature and
its immediate object and effect, by setting it before us, not merely
as a display of the principles of the divine government and law, —
although it was this, — but, more distinctly and precisely, as the
endurance of the penalty of the law in our room. It was just
because it loas the endurance of the penalty^ — or, tohat is virtually
the same thing, of a full equivalent for it, — that it was, or could he,
a display or manifestation of the principles of the divine government
and law ; and it bore upon the pardon and salvation of men, not
merely through the intervention of its being such a display or
manifestation, — though this consideration is true, and is not to be
overlooked, — but still more directly from its own proper nature,
as being a penal infliction, in accordance with the provisions of
the law, endured in our room and stead, and as thus furnishing
an adequate ground or reason why those in whose room it was
suffered should not suffer, in their own person, the penalty which
they had incurred.

The Arminians, holding the universality of the atonement,
and rejecting the doctrine of election, regard the death of Christ
as equally fitted, and equally intended, to promote the spiritual
welfare and eternal salvation of all men ; and of course cannot
but regard it as very indirectly and remotely connected with the
results to which it was directed. Of those for whom Christ died,
for whose salvation His death was intended, — that is, of the
whole human race, — some are saved, and some perish. If He
died for all equally, for both classes alike. His death cannot be

Sec. VII.] AEMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 317

the proper cause or ground of the salvation of any, and can have
no direct or efficacious connection with salvation in any instance ;
and hence it is quite consistent in Arminians to represent the
proper and immediate effect of His death to be merely that of
enabling God, safely and honourably, to pardon any man who
complied with the conditions He prescribed, or, what is virtually
the same thing, that of procuring for Christ Himself the power
of bestowing pardon upon any who might choose to accept of it ;
— that, merely, of removing obstacles, or opening a door, without
containing or producing any provision for effecting or securing
that any men should enter in at the door, and actually partake
of the blessings of salvation provided for them.

This general doctrine of the Arminians with regard to the
immediate object and effect of Christ's death being merely to
enable God to pardon any who might be willing to accept the
boon, — to remove out of the way legal obstacles to any or all
men being pardoned, — to open a door into which any who choose
might enter, and, by entering, obtain reconciliation and forgive-
ness,— is usually brought out more fully and distinctly in the
way of maintaining the two following positions : First, that the
impetration and the application of reconciliation and pardon are
not only distinct in idea or conception, but separate or disjoined
in fact or reality; and, secondly, — what is virtually the same
general principle, more distinctly developed, or an immediate
consequence of it, — that while a causal or meritorious connection,
though not direct and immediate, subsists between the death of
Christ and the pardon of men's sins, no causal or meritorious
connection exists between the death of Christ and faith and re-
pentance, without which, no man is actually reconciled to God, or
forgiven ; and to these two positions we would briefly advert.

First, they teach that Christ, by His sufferings and death,
impetrated or procured pardon and reconciliation for men — for all
men, — meaning thereby nothing more, in substance, than that
He removed legal obstacles, and opened a door for God bestowing
pardon and reconciliation upon all who would accept of them ;
while they also teach, that to many for whom these blessings
were thus impetrated or procured by Him, even to all who ulti-
mately perish, these blessings are not in fact applied. The
reason — the sole reason — why these men do not actually partake
in the blessings thus procured for them, is because they refuse to

318 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

do what is in their own power, in the way of receiving them, or
complying with the prescribed conditions. But this last considera-
tion properly belongs to another branch of the Arminian system,
— namely, their denial of man's total depravity, and their asser-
tion of his ability to repent and believe. We have at present to
do with their doctrine of the possible, and actual, separation and
disjunction of the impetration and the application of pardon or
forgiveness. Oalvinists admit that the impetration and the appli-
cation of the blessings of salvation are distinct things, which may
be conceived and spoken of apart from each other, which are
effected by different agencies and at different periods. The im-
petration of all these blessings they ascribe to Christ, to what He
did and suffered in our room and stead. The application of
them, by which men individually become partakers in them, they
ascribe to the Holy Spirit. It is the clear and constant doctrine
of Scripture, that no man is actually pardoned and reconciled to
God until he repent and believe. It is then only that he becomes
a partaker of the blessings which Christ purchased. It is ad-
mitted, in this way, that the impetration or purchase, and the
application or bestowal upon men individually, of pardon and
reconciliation, are perfectly distinct from each other; but in
opposition to the Ai'minian doctrine, which represents them as
separable, and in fact separated and disjoined, as to the persons
who are the objects of them, there is an important scriptural
truth, held by almost all Calvinists, — that is, by all of them
except those who believe in a universal or unlimited atonement,
— which is thus stated in our Confession of Faith : * "To all
those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth cer-
tainly and effectually apply and communicate the same." The
word redemption is here evidently used, as it often is in Scripture,
as comprehending those blessings which it was the direct object
of Christ's death to procure ; and it includes, of course, recon-
ciliation with God and the forgiveness of sin. The doctrine of
Scripture and of our Confession is, that to all for whom these
blessings were purchased or impetrated, they are also applied or
communicated ; so that they all in fact receive and partake of
them, or are actually pardoned and reconciled.

The doctrine of the Arminians is, that redemption, at least in

* Confession, c. viii. s. 8.

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 319

so far as it includes the blessings of pardon and reconciliation,
was procured for all men, — and for all men equally and alike ;
but that there are many, even all those who ultimately perish, to
whom these blessings, though procured for them, are not applied
or communicated, — who never in fact receive or partake of them.
That pardon and reconciliation are not applied or communicated
to many, is not a matter of dispute ; this is admitted on all hands.
The question is, whether they were procured, or impetrated, or
purchased for any to whom they are not applied, — for any but
those to whom they are communicated, so that they actually re-
ceive, possess, and enjoy them? This, indeed, constitutes the
true and correct status quoestionis with respect to the extent of the
atonement. The settlement of that controversy depends upon the
decision of this question, — whether or not Christ impetrated, or pro-
cured, or purchased reconciliation and pardon for any men except
those to whom these blessings are actually applied, — are ultimately
communicated ; whether or not they are certainly and effectually
applied and communicated to all for whom they were procured or
purchased ? W^e do not at present meddle with this question, in so
far as it is affected by the materials we have for deciding it, in what
we have the means of knowing, concerning the will, the decrees,
the design, the purpose of the Father and the Son in the matter,
although this is manifestly an essential element in the decision ;
bat only in so far as it is connected with certain views regarding
the nature and the immediate objects and effects of Christ's
sufferings and death ; in other words, regarding the nature and
import of the impetration or purchase of the blessings of reconci-
liation and pardon as set before us in Scripture. And here again,
of course, our leading position is, as before, that such a view of
the impetration of pardon and reconciliation, as does not also in-
clude or imply in it a certain and effectual provision for applying
or communicating them to all for whom they were procured, does
not come up to the full and fair import of the scriptural state-
ments which unfold or indicate the immediate object and effect of
the sufferings and death of Christ, and their bearing upon men's
salvation, and upon all that salvation implies and requires, —
especially upon their pardon and reconciliation to God. An impe-
tration which may possibly not be followed by application, — which
in many cases will not be conjoined with the actual communica-
tion of what was procured, — which will leave many for whom it

320 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

was undertaken and effected, to perish for ever, unpardoned and
unreconciled, — does not correspond with, or come up to, the doc-
trines of substitution and satisfaction taught us in Scripture, — the
information given us there concerning Christ's object in dying
for men, and the bearing and consequences of His vacarious suf-
ferings upon their relation to God, to His law, and to eternity.

Secondly, the second leading position implied in the defective
and erroneous Arminian view, with respect to the immediate object
and effect of Christ's death, is this, — that no causal or meritorious
connection exists between it and faith and repentance, with which
the application of, or actual participation in, the blessings of re-
demption, is inseparably connected. They teach that Christ pro-
cures pardon and reconciliation for all men upon condition of
their repenting and believing ; but they deny that, by dying, He
procured for any man faith and repentance, or made any provi-
sion whatever for effecting or securing that any man should, in
fact, repent or believe. The general principles of the Calvinistic
scheme of doctrine, as distinguished from the Arminian, of course
imply that men cannot repent and believe of themselves, and
that God in His good time, and in the execution of His own
decrees and purposes, gives faith and repentance to all those, and
to those only, whom He has chosen in Christ before the founda-
tion of the world, and whom He has specially watched over, and
attended to, in every step of the great process by which the salva-
tion of sinners is ultimately accomplished; but here, again, in
accordance with the plan and object we have repeatedly inti-
mated, we advert at present only to the connection between the
death of Christ and the production of faith and repentance in all
in whom they are produced. Arminians differ among themselves
as to the ability of men to repent and beheve, and as to the
kind and measure of divine agency that may be concerned in in-
ducing or enabling men to repent and believe, — the more con-
sistent among them resolving the production of faith and repent-
ance in each case into the powers or capacities of man himself ;
and the less consistent, but more evangelical, resolving it, with the
sacred Scriptures and the Calvinists, into the almighty agency
of the Divine Spirit. But they all deny that Christ, by His suf-
ferings and death, procured, or purchased, or merited faith and
repentance for those who come at length to believe and repent.
They all maintain that, whatever may be the cause or source of

Sec. VII.] ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. 321

faith, it is not in any case one of the results of Christ's death, —
one of the fruits of His purchase ; it is not to be traced to the
shedding of His precious blood, as if any causal connection ex-
isted between them, — as if the one exerted any meritorious or
efficacious influence upon the other.

The reason of their unanimous maintenance of these views
is very obvious. If Christ, by His sufferings and death, made
provision for the production of faith, in order that thereby, in
accordance with God's arrangements, men individually might
actually partake in the blessings He procured for them, — if the
production of faith is indeed one of the objects and results of His
death, one of the fruits of His purchase, — then He could not
have died for all men ; He must have died only for those who
ultimately believe ; He must have made certain and effectual
provision for applying and communicating redemption to all for
whom He purchased it. And Calvinists undertake to show that
Scripture sanctions the position, that faith, wherever it has been
produced in any man, is to be traced to the death of Christ as its
source or cause, — is to be regarded as one of the blessings pur-
chased for him, and for all who are ever made partakers of it, by
the shedding of Christ's blood, to prove this not only from par-
ticular statements of Scripture establisliing this precise point, but
also from the general representations given us there of the con-
nection between the death of Christ, and not merely a general
scheme of salvation for mankind at large, but the actual salvation
of each man individually. The doctrine of our Confession upon
the subject is this : * " The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience
and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit
once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfiied the justice of His
Father ; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlast-
ing inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the
Father hath given unto Him." Reconciliation was purchased by
His sacrifice of Himself, and purchased for certain men. Along
with this, and by the same price, was purchased for the same
persons, an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven ;
and, of course, also that faith of theirs, with which both recon-
ciliation and the everlasting inheritance are inseparably connected.
The Arminians admit that by His sacrifice He purchased for

* Confession, c. viii. s. 5.
3 — VOL. II. X

322 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

men reconciliation ; but then they hold that, as it was purchased
for all men, and as many men are never reconciled to God, what
He purchased for any was not properly reconciliation, but rather
what has been called reconciliahility, or a capacity of being recon-
ciled,— that is, the removing of legal obstacles, that they may all
pass over, if they choose ; the opening of a door, that they may
all enter, if they are so disposed. And thus the substance of
what they teach upon this point is this, — that, notwithstanding all
that Christ did and suffered in order to save sinners, it was quite
possible, so far as anything contemplated by or involved in the
shedding of His blood was concerned, — so far as any provision
was made by His humiliation and sacrifice for averting this re-
sult,— that no sinner might have been saved ; that all for whom
He died might perish for ever ; that the everlasting inheritance
in the kingdom of heaven might never have been enjoyed by any
one of those whom He came to seek and to save, and for whose
eternal happiness He poured out His blood.*

These are the leading peculiarities of the views commonly
held by Arminian writers, in regard to this great doctrine of the
atonement, though they are certainly not held with equal ful-
ness and explicitness by all who may be fairly ranked under this
general designation. Indeed, it will be found that the sounder
Arminians, especially when they are engaged in defending the
doctrine of the atonement against the Socinians, often bring out
the doctrines of the substitution and satisfaction of Christ clearly
and fully, — defend them with much learning and ability, and
seem to understand them in a sense which, in consistency, ought
to exclude all those views of theirs concerning the necessity of
the atonement, — its nature, — its relation to the divine law, — and
its immediate object and effect, which we have explained. But
whenever they proceed to consider its bearing upon the condition
and fate of men individually, in relation to God and eternity, and
whenever they begin to unfold' the doctrine of its universality, then
we immediately discover the traces, more or less fully developed,
of the errors and corruptions which I have stated and exposed.

My principal object in making this detailed statement of the
peculiar views generally held by Arminians upon this subject,
besides that of explaining one important department of the cou-

* Davenant, De Morte Christi, p. 87.

Sec. VIII.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 323

troversies that have been carried on regarding it, was to brin£f
out these two considerations : First, That Arminians have gene-
rally manifested a strong tendency to dilute or explain away the
Scripture doctrines of the substitution and satisfaction of Christ ;
that, in their controversies with Calvinists upon this subject, they
often greatly attenuate or modify the views which they them-
selves maintain, when defending the doctrine of the atonement
against the Socinians ; or at least refuse to follow them out to
their legitimate consequences and applications, and thus obscure,
and to some extent corrupt, the great doctrine which most
directly and immediately unfolds the foundation of a sinner's
hope. Secondly, That this tendency of the Arminians to modify
or explain away the Scripture doctrines of the substitution and
satisfaction of Christ, and to approximate more or less to So-
cinian views, or at least to rest in vague and ambiguous gene-
ralities, — in loose and indefinite statements, — about the true
nature, and the immediate objects and effects, of the sufferings
and death of Christ, and the connection subsisting between them,
is traceable to, or in some way intimately connected with, their
doctrine of the universality of the atonement, — a consideration
which strongly confirms the important position, that the nature
of the atonement settles or determines its extent, and prepares us
to expect to find, among all who hold a universal atonement, —
Calvinists as well as Arminians, — the prevalence, in a greater or
less degree, and with more or less of explicit development, of de-
fective and erroneous views, with respect to the substitution and
satisfaction of Christ, His bearing our sins in His own body, and
by bearing them, bearing them away.

Sec. 8. — Extent of the Atonement.

We proceed now to the third and last division, — namely, the
consideration of the peculiar views, in regard to the atonement,
of those divines who profess to hold Calvinistic doctrines upon
other points, but on this concur with, or approximate to, the
views of the Arminians ; and this of course leads us to examine
the subject of the extent of the atonement, — a topic which is
much discussed among theologians in the present day, and is on
this account, as well as from its own nature and bearings, pos-
sessed of much interest and importance.

324 DOCTRINE OP THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

There are now, and for more than two centuries — that is,
since the time of Cameron, a Scotchman, who became Professor
of Theology in the Protestant Church of France — there have
always been, theologians, and some of them men of well-merited
eminence, who have held the Calvinistic doctrines of the entire
depravity of human nature, and of God's unconditional election
of some men from eternity to everlasting life, but who have also
maintained the universality of the atonement, — the doctrine that
Christ died for all men, and not for those only who are ultimately
saved. As some men have agreed with Arminians in holding the
universality of the atonement who were Calvinists in all other re-
spects, and as a considerable appearance of Scripture evidence can
be produced for the doctrine that Christ died for all men, it has been
generally supposed that the doctrine of particular redemption, as
it is often called, or of a limited atonement, forms the weak point
of the Calvinistic system, — that which can with most plausibility
be assailed, and can with most difficulty be defended. Now this
impression has some foundation. There is none of the Arminian
doctrines, in favour of which so much appearance of Scripture
evidence can be adduced, as that of the universality of the atone-
ment ; and if Arminians could really prove that Christ died for
the salvation of all men, then the argument which, as I formei'ly
intimated, they commonly deduce from this doctrine, in opposi-
tion to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, could not, taken
by itself, be easily answered. It is evident, however, on the
other side, that if the Arminian doctrine of the universality of
the atonement can be disproved, when tried upon its own direct
and proper grounds and evidences, without founding upon its
apparent inconsistency with the other doctrines of the Calvinistic
system, then not only is one important principle established, which
has been held by most Calvinists, — that, namely, of a limited
atonement, that is, of an atonement limited as to its destination
or intended objects, — but great additional strength is given to
the general body of the evidence in support of Calvinism.

This is the aspect in which the arrangement we have followed
leads us to examine it. Looking merely at the advantage of con-
troversial impression, it would not be the most expedient course
to enter upon the Arminian controversy, as we are doing, through
the discussion of the extent of the atonement, since Ai'minians
can adduce a good deal that is plausible in support of its univer-

Sec. VIII.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 325

sallty, and found a strong argument against Calvinistic predes-
tination on the assumption of its universality, — considerations
which would suggest the policy of first establishing some of the
other doctrines of Calvinism against the Arminians, and then
employing these doctrines, already established, to confirm the
direct and proper evidence against a universal, and in favour of
a limited, atonement. But since we have been led to consider
the subject of an atonement in general, in opposition to the Soci-
nians, we have thought it better to continue, without interruption,
the investigation of this subject until we finish it, although it does
carry us into the Arminian controversy, at the point where Armi-
nianism seems to be strongest. We have thought it better to do
this than to return to the subject of the extent of the atonement,
after discussing some of the other doctrines controverted between
the Calvinists and the Arminians. And we have had the less
hesitation about following out this order, for these reasons : first,
because we are not afraid to encounter the Arminian doctrine of
a universal atonement, upon the ground of its own direct and
proper evidence, without calling in the assistance that might be
derived from the previous proof of the other doctrines of Cal-
vinism ; secondly, because the examination of the whole subject
of the atonement at once enables us to bring out more fully the
principle, which we reckon of fundamental importance upon this
whole question, — namely, that the nature of the atonement settles
or determines its extent ; and, thirdly, because, if it can be really
shown, as we have no doubt it can, that the Scripture view of
the nature, and immediate object and effect, of the atonement,
disproves its universality, then we have, in this way, what is com-
monly reckoned the weakest part of the Calvinistic system con-
clusively established, on its own direct and proper evidence ; and
established, moreover, by the force of all the arguments which
have been generally employed, not only by Calvinists, but by the
sounder or un-Socinianized Arminians, in disputing with the
Socinians on the truth and reality of an atonement.

In proceeding now to advert to the subject of the extent of
the atonement, as a distinct, independent topic, we shall first
explain the doctrine which has been generally held upon this
subject by Calvinists, commonly called the doctrine of particular
redemption, or that of a limited or definite atonement; and
then, secondly, advert to the differences between the doctrine of

326 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

universal or unlimited atonement or redemption, as held by Ar-
minians, and as held by those who profess Calvinistic doctrines
upon other points.

The question as to the extent of the atonement is commonly
and popularly represented as amounting in substance to this :
Whether Christ died for all men, or only for the elect, — for those
who ultimately believe and are saved ? But this state of the ques-
tion does not bring out the true nature of the point in dispute
with sufficient fulness, accuracy, and precision. And, accord-
ingly, we find that neither in the canons of the Synod of Dort,
nor in our Confession of Faith, — which are commonly reckoned
the most important and authoritative expositions of Calvinism, — is
there any formal or explicit deliverance given upon the question
as stated in this way, and in these terms. Arminians, and other
defenders of a universal atonement, are generally partial to this
mode of stating it, because it seems most readily and obviously to
give to their doctrine the sanction and protection of certain scrip-
tural statements, — which look like a direct assertion, — but are
not, — that Christ died for all men ; and because there are some
ambiguities about the meaning of the expressions, of which they
usually avail themselves. I have no doubt that the controversy
about the extent of the atonement is substantially decided in our
Confession, though no formal deliverance is given upon the pre-
cise question, whether Christ died for all men, or only for the elect;
and it may tend to bring out clearly the true state of the question,
as well as contribute to the subsidiary, but still important, object
of assisting to determine what is the doctrine of our Confession
upon this subject, if we advert to the statements it contains re-
garding it, and the manner in which it gives its deliverance upon
it. We have already had occasion to quote, incidentally, the
principal declarations of the Confession upon this subject, in ex-
plaining the peculiar views of the Arminians, with regard to the
atonement in general ; but it may be proper now to examine them
somewhat more fully. They are chiefly the following :* " They
who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ ;
are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working
in due season ; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His
power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other re-

* C. iii. s. vi.

Sec. VIII.] EXTENT OP THE ATONEMENT. 327

deemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified,
and saved, but the elect only."

There are two questions which may be, and indeed have been,
started with respect to the meaning of these words ; attempts
having been made to show that they do not contradict or exclude
the doctrine of a universal atonement, as it has been sometimes
held by Calvinists. The first question is as to the import of the
word " redeemed ; " and it turns upon this point : Does the
word describe merely the impetration or purchase of pardon and
reconciliation for men by the death of Christ ? or does it compre-
hend the application as well as the impetration ? If it be under-
stood in the first or more limited sense, as descriptive only of the
impetration or purchase, then, of course, the statement of the
Confession clearly asserts a definite or limited atonement, — com-
prehending as its objects those only who in fact receive all other
spiritual blessings, and are ultimately saved ; whereas if it in-
cluded the application as well as the impetration, the statement
might consist with the universality of the atonement, as it is not
contended, even by Arminians, that, in this wide sense, any are
redeemed by Christ, except those who ultimately believe and are
saved. Indeed, one of the principal uses to which the Arminians
commonly apply the distinction between impetration and applica-
tion, as they explain it, is this, — that they interpret the scriptural
statements which seem to speak of all men as comprehended in
the objects of Christ's death, of the impetration of pardon and
reconciliation for them ; and interpret those passages which seem
to indicate some limitation in the objects of His dying, of the
application of those blessings to men individually. Now it seems
very manifest that the word " redeemed " is to be taken here in
the first or more limited sense, — as descriptive only of the impe-
tration or purchase of pardon and reconciliation ; because there is
a distinct enumeration of all the leading steps in the great pro-
cess which, originating in God's eternal, absolute election of some
men, terminates in their complete salvation, — their redemption by
Christ being evidently, from the whole structure of the statement,
not comprehensive of, but distinguished from, their vocation and
justification, which constitute the application of the blessings of
redemption, — the benefits which Christ purchased.

The second question to which I referred, applies only to the
last clause quoted, — namely, " Neither are any other redeemed by

328 DOCTRINE OF TPIE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved,
but the elect only." Here it has been made a question, whether
the concluding restriction, to " the elect only," applies to each of
the preceding predicates, " redeemed," " called," " justified," etc.,
singly and separately^ or only to the whole of them taken collec-
tively ; that is, whether it be intended to be here asserted that
not any one of these things, such as " redeemed," can be predi-
cated of any but the elect only, or merely that the whole of them,
taken in conjunction, cannot be predicated of any others. The
latter interpretation — namely, that there are none but the elect of
whom the whole collectively can be predicated — would make the
declaration a mere truism, serving no purpose, and really giving no
deliverance upon anything, although the repetition of the general
statement about the consequences of election, or the execution of
God's eternal decree, in a negative form, was manifestly intended
to be peculiarly 'emphatic, and to contain a denial of an error
reckoned important. The Confession, therefore, must be regarded
as teaching, that it is not true of any but the elect only that they
are redeemed by Christ, any more than it is true that any others
are called, justified, or saved. Here I may remark by the way, that
though many modern defenders of a universal atonement regard
the word redemption as including the application as well as the
impetration of pardon and reconciliation, — and, in this sense,
disclaim tlie doctrine of universal redemption, — yet a different
phraseology was commonly used in theological discussions about
the period at which the Confession was prepared, and in the
seventeenth century generally. Then the defenders of a uni-
versal atonement generally maintained, without any hesitation, the
doctrine of universal redemption, — using the word, of course, to
describe only the impetration, and not the application, of spiri-
tual and saving blessings ; and this holds true, both of those who
admitted, and of those who denied, the Calvinistic doctrine of
election. Of the first of these cases (the Calvinists) we have an
instance in Kichard Baxter's work, which he entitled Universal
Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ; and of the
second (the Arminians) in Dr. Isaac Barrow's sermons, entitled
The Doctrine of Universal Redemption Asserted and E.vplained.

The other leading statements upon this subject in the Con-
fession, are those which we have already had occasion to quote
from the eighth chapter, sees. 5, 8 : " The Lord Jesus, by His

Sec. VIII.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 329

perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the
Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the
justice of His Father ; and purchased not only reconciliation, but
an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those
whom the Father hath given unto Him ; " and again : " To all
those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption " (that is, par-
don and reconciliation), " He doth certainly and effectually apply
and communicate the same ; making intercession for them ; and
revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salva-
tion ; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and
obey," etc. Noio this latter statement, as I formerly intimated,
contains, and was iritended to contain, the true status qusestionis in
the controversy about the extent of the atonement. It is to be ex-
plained by a reference to the mode of conducting this controversy,
between the Calvinists and Arminians, about the time of the
Synod of Dort, and also to the mode of conducting the contro-
versy excited in France by Cameron,* and afterwards carried on
by Amyraldus in France and Holland, and by Baxter in England.
The fundamental position of all who had advocated the doctrine,
of atonement against the Socinians, but had also maintained that
it was universal or unlimited, was, — that Christ, by His sufferings
and death, purchased pardon and reconciliation for all men, with-
out distinction or exception ; but that these blessings are applied
or communicated to, and of course are actually enjoyed by, those
only who came, from whatever cause, to repent and believe. This,
of course, is the only sense in which the doctrine of universal
atonement, or redemption, could be held by any who did not
believe in the doctrine of universal salvation. And the assertion
or denial of this must, from the nature of the case, form the
substance of the controversy about the extent of the atonement,
whatever diversity of phraseology may be, at different times,
employed in discussing it.

The doctrine of a universal atonement necessarily implies, not
only that God desired and intended that all men should be bene-
fited by Christ's death, — for this, in some sense, is universally
admitted, — but that, in its special and peculiar character as an

* It is a curious circumstance that | make any statement precisely similar
the followers of Cameron maiutained to this of our Confession. Dallaei
that the Synod of Dort did not con- Apologia pro duabus Synodis, p. 623.
demn their views, because it did not 1

330 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

atonement^ — that is, as a penal infliction, as a ransom price, — it
should effect something bearing favourably upon their spiritual
welfare. This could be only by its purchasing for all men the
pardon of their sins and reconciliation with God, which the Scrip-
ture plainly represents as the proper and direct results or effects
of Christ's death. The advocates of this doctrine accordingly
say that He impetrated or purchased these blessings for all men ;
and as many are never actually pardoned and reconciled, they
are under the necessity, as I formerly explained, because they hold
a universal atonement^ both of explaining away pardon and recon-
ciliation as meaning merely the removal of legal obstacles, or the
opening up of a door, for God's bestowing these blessings, and
of maintaining that these blessings are impetrated for many to
whom they are never applied. Now this, of course, is the posi-
tion which the statement in the Confession was intended to con-
tradict, by asserting that impetration and application, though
distinct, are co-extensive, and ai'e never, in fact, separated, — that
all for whom these blessings were ever designed or procured, do
certainly receive them ; or, conversely, that they were not de-
signed or procured for any except those who ultimately partake
of them. This, then, is the form in which the controversy about
the extent of the atonement is stated and decided in our Con-
fession of Faith ; and whatever differences of phraseology may
have been introduced into the discussion of this subject in more
modern times, it is always useful to recur to this mode of stating
the question, as fitted to explain the true nature of the points
involved in it, and to suggest clear conceptions of the real im-
port of the different topics adduced upon both sides. Those who
are usually represented as holding the doctrine of particular re-
demption, or limited atonement, — as teaching that Christ did not
die for all men, but only for the elect, — contend for nothing
more than this, and cannot be shown to be under any obligation,
in point of consistency, to contend for more, — namely, that to
all those for wdiom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth
certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same ; and
all who take the opposite side, and maintain that Christ died
for all men, — that His atonement was universal or unlimited, —
can, without difficulty, be proved to maintain, or to be bound
in consistency to maintain, — if they really admit an atonement
at all, and at the same time deny universal salvation, — that He

Sec. VIII.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 331

purchased redemption — that is, pardon and reconciliation — for
many to whom they are never applied, who never are put in
possession of them.

We would now make two or three observations, suggested
by this account of the state of the question. First, the advo-
cates of a limited or definite atonement do not deny, but main-
tain, the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction and
merits. They regard His sufferings and death as possessed of
value or worth sufficient to have purchased pardon and recon-
ciliation for the whole race of fallen man. The value or worth
of His sacrifice of Himself depends upon, and is measured by,
the dignity of His person, and is therefore infinite. Though many
fewer of the human race had been to be pardoned and saved, an
atonement of infinite value would have been necessary, in order
to procure for them these blessings ; and though many more,
yea, all men, had been to be pardoned and saved, the death of
Christ, being an atonement of infinite value, would have been
amply sufficient, as the ground or basis of their forgiveness or
salvation. We know nothing of the amount or extent of Christ's
sufferings in themselves. Scripture tells us only of their relation
to the law, in compliance with the provision of which they were
inflicted, and endured. This implies their infinity, in respect of
intrinsic legal worth or value ; and this, again, implies their full
intrinsic sufficiency for the redemption of all men, if God had
intended to redeem and save them. There have been some
Calvinists who have contended that Christ's sufferings were just
as much, in amount or extent, as were sufficient for redeeming,
or paying the ransom price of, the elect, — of those who are
actually saved ; so that, if more men had been to be pardoned
and saved, Christ must have suffered more than He did, and if
fewer, less. But those who have held this view have been very
few in number, and of no great weight or influence. The opinion,
however, is one which the advocates of universal atonement are
fond of adducing and refuting, because it is easy to refute it ;
and because this is fitted to convey the impression that the
advocates of a limited atonement in general hold this, or some-
thing like it, and thus to insinuate an unfavourable idea of the
doctrine. There is no doubt that all the most eminent Calvinistic
divines hold the infinite worth or value of Christ's atonement, —
its full sufficiency for expiating all the sins of all men.

332 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which
has been often adverted to in this discussion, and which it may
be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say that Christ
died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — sr<^-
cienter pro omnibus^ effi,caciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines,
who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the
subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion — and Calvin him-
self among the rest — admitted the truth of this scholastic position.
But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject,
orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating
the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or
intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by
the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation ;
not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His
death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement
— whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to
suggest the idea that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that
all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the
shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the
death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or
design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, be-
cause this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infi-
nite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit ; whereas the original
scholastic form of. the statement — namely, that He died suffi-
ciently for all — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended
that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from
His death. The attempt made by some defenders of universal
atonement to prove that a denial of the universality of the
atonement necessarily implies a denial of its universal intrinsic
sufficiency, has nothing to do with the settlement of the state of
the question, but only with the arguments by which the opposite
side may be defended ; and therefore I need not advert to it.

Secondly, It is not denied by the advocates of particular re-
demption, or of a limited atonement, that mankind in general,
even those who ultimately perish, do derive some advantages or
benefits from Christ's death ; and no position they hold requires
them to deny this. They believe that important benefits have
accrued to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and
that in these benefits those who are finally impenitent and un-
believing partake. What they deny is, that Christ intended to

Sec. VIIL] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 333

procure, or did procure, for all men those blessings which are the
proper and peculiar fruits of His death, in its specific character
as an atonement, — that He procured or purchased redemption —
that is, pardon and reconciliation — for all men. Many blessings
flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally
and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men,
viewed collectively, stand to each other. All these benefits were
of course foreseen by God, when He resolved to send His Son
into the world ; they were contemplated or designed by Him, as
what men should receive and enjoy. They are to be regarded
and received as bestowed by Him, and as thus unfolding His
glory, indicating His character, and actually accomplishing His
purposes ; and they are to be viewed as coming to men through
the channel of Christ's mediation, — of His sufferings and death.*
The truth of this position has been considered as affording
some warrant for saying, in a vague and indefinite sense, that
Christ died for all men ; and in this sense, and on this account,
some Calvinists have scrupled about meeting the position that
Christ died for all men with a direct negative, as if they might
thus be understood as denying that there was any sense in which
all men derived benefit, and in which God intended that they
should derive benefit from Christ's death. But this position does
not at all correspond with the proper import of what Scripture
means when it tells us that Christ died for men. This, as ice
prove against the Socinians^ implies that He substituted Himself in
their room and stead, that He put Himself in their legal position,
that He made satisfaction to God's justice for their sins, or that
He purchased redemption for them ; and this, we contend, does
not hold true of any but those who are actually at length par-
doned and saved. The advocates of universal atonement, then,
have no right to charge us with teaching that none derive any
benefit from Christ's death except those who are pardoned and
saved ; we do not teach this, and we are not bound in consistency
to teach it. We teach the opposite of this ; and we are not de-
terred from doing so by the fear lest we should thereby afford to
those who are opposed to us a medium for proving that, in the
proper scriptural sense, He died for all men, or that the leading

* Witsius, be Q^con. Feed. lib. ii. I Turrettin., Loc. xiv. Qu. xiv. sec.
ix. sec. iv. xi.

334 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

and peculiar benefits which His death procured for men — the
benefits of salvation — were designed or intended for all mankind.

There is no very material difference between the state of the
question with respect to the extent of the atonement — and to that
at present we confine our attention — according as its universality
is maintained by Arminians, or by those who hold Calvinistic
doctrines upon other points. The leading distinction is, that the
Calvinistic universalists are obliged to practise more caution in
their declarations upon some points, and to deal somewhat more
in vague and ambiguous generalities than the Arminians, in
order to avoid as much as possible the appearance of contra-
dicting or renouncing, by what they say upon this subject, their
professed Calvinism upon other topics.

As the controversy with regard to the extent of the atone-
ment does not turn — though many of the universalists would fain
have it so — upon the question of the infinite sufficiency of Christ's
sufferings and merits, it must turn upon the question of the pur-
pose, design^ or intention of God in inflicting sufferings and death
upon His Son, and of Christ in voluntarily submitting to them.
Universal atonement thus indicates and proves the existence, on
the part of God and Christ, of a purpose, design, or intention, in
some sense or other, to save all men. And for the Calvinistic
universalists to assert the existence of such a purpose, design, or
intention, — in combination and in consistency with the doctrine
that God has from eternity elected some men to everlasting life,
and determined to save them, — requires the introduction of a good
deal of confusion and ambiguity into their mode of stating and
arguing the case. They cannot say, with the Arminians, that
Christ died equally for all men ; for they cannot dispute that
God's special purpose of grace in regard to the elect — which
Arminians deny, but they admit — must have, in some sense and
to some extent, regulated or influenced the whole of the process
by which God's purpose was accomplished, — by which His decree
of election was executed. They accordingly contend for a general
design or purpose of God and Christ — indicated by the alleged
universality of the atonement — to save all men ; and a special de-
sign or purpose — indicated by the specialty of the bestowal of that
faitii (which they admit — which the Arminians, practically at least,
deny — to be God's gift) — to save only the elect. But this, again,
belongs rather to the argument of the case than to the state of the

Sec. VIII.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 335

question. The substance of the matter is, that they concur with
the Arminians in denying the great truth laid down in our Con-
fession of Faith, that redemption — that is, pardon and reconciha-
tion — are actually applied^ and communicated to all for whom
they were procured or purchased; and, to a large extent, they
employ the very same arguments in order to defend their position.
It may be worth while briefly to advert to one of the particular
forms in which, in our own day, the state of the question has been
exhibited by some of the Calvinistic universalists. It is that
of asserting what they call a general and a special reference of
Christ's death, — a general reference which it has to all men, and
a s})ecial reference which it has to the elect. This is manifestly a
very vague and ambiguous distinction, which may mean almost
anything or nothing, and is therefore very well adapted to a
transition state of things, when men are passing from comparative
orthodoxy on this subject into deeper and more important error.
This general reference of Christ's death — its reference to all men
— may mean merely, that, in consequence of Christ's death, certain
benefits or advantages flow to mankind at large, and in this sense
it is admitted by those wjio hold the doctrine of particular redemp-
tion; or it may describe the proper Arminian doctrine of universal
or unlimited atonement ; or, lastly, it may indicate anything or
everything that may be supposed to lie between these two views.
It cannot, therefore, be accepted as a true and fair account of the
state of the question about the extent of the atonement, as dis-
cussed between Calvinists, and may not unreasonably be regarded
with some jealousy and suspicion, as at least fitted, if not intended,
to involve the true state of the question in darkness or ambiguity.
The universality of the atonement had been defended before our
Confession of Faith was prepared, by abler and more learned men
— both Calvinists and Arminians — than any who in modern times
have undertaken the same cause. The authors of the Confession
were thoroughly versant in these discussions; and it will be found,
upon full study and investigation, that whatever variety of forms
either the state of the question, or the arguments adduced on both
sides, may have assumed in more modern discussions, the whole
substance and merits of the case are involved in, and can be most
fairly and fully discussed by, the examination of their position, —
namely, that "to all those for whom Christ hath purchased re-
demption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communi-

336 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

cate the same." This position proceeds upon the assumption that
He purchased redemption for men. The truth of this assumption
is involved in the estabUshment of the doctrine of the atonement,
— of Christ's death being a ransom price, — in opposition to the
Socinians, and must be admitted by all, unless, while professedly
holding the doctrine of the atonement, they virtually sink down
to Socinianism, by explaining it entirely away. And this being
assumed, the position asserts, that all for whom redemption was
purchased, have it applied or communicated to them ; and that,
of course, Christ died for the purpose, and with the intention, of
procuring or purchasing pardon and reconciliation only for those
who ultimately receive them, when they repent and believe.

Sec. 9. — Evidence as to the Extent of the Atonement.

I do not intend to enter here into anything like a full Investi-
gation of the scriptural evidence upon the subject of the extent of
the atonement. I can only make a few observations upon some
of the points involved in it, — suggesting some of the things that
ought to be kept in view In the study of the subject; and in doing
so, I need not hesitate, from any fear of being misunderstood,
after the full explanations I have given about the true state of
the question, to use, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the
expressions, universal and limited atonement, — universal and par-
ticular redemption, — and Christ's dying for all men, or only for
the elect.

The advocates of universal atonement confidently aver that
this doctrine is clearly and explicitly taught in Scripture, — so
clearly and explicitly, that it is to be taken as a first principle,
and ought to regulate and control the interpretation and applica-
tion of other passages which may seem inconsistent with it ; and
they appeal, in support of this position, to those scriptural state-
ments which speak of Christ's dying or making propitiation for
all, — for the world, the whole world, — and even, it is alleged, for
some who do, or may, ultimately perish. We contend that these
statements do not necessarily, or even naturally, bear the con-
struction which our opponents put upon them ; and that there
are other scriptural statements which clearly indicate a limitation
as to the persons whose spiritual welfare — whose actual posses-
sion and enjoyment of any spiritual blessings — was contemplated

Sec. IX.] EVIDENCE AS TO EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 337

or intended by the death of Christ, or by Christ in dying. Our
opponents, of course, profess to show that these statements may
be all interpreted in accordance with their doctrine of the uni-
versality of the atonement. We profess to be able to assign good
reasons why a language of a general, indefinite, or unlimited
signification should have been employed in speaking of the ob-
jects and effects of Christ's death, while no full and proper
universality was intended ; and they profess to be able to assign
good reasons why, in some cases, some limitation should be in-
dicated, while yet there was no intention of denying that Christ
died for all men, — that is, for all the individuals of the human
race, pro omnibus et singulis. This is a general description of
the way in which the controversy is conducted by the opposite
parties, in the investigation of the scriptural evidence bearing
more directly and immediately upon the subject of the extent
of the atonement. It may be said to comprehend three leading
departments : First, The investigation of the exact meaning and
import of the principal passages adduced in support of the two
opposite doctrines, especially with the view of ascertaining whether
we can lay hold of any one position upon the subject which is
distinct and definite, and does not admit, without great and un-
warrantable straining, of being explained away, and which may
therefore be regarded as a fixed point — a regulating principle —
of interpretation. Secondly, The comparative facility and fair-
ness with which the passages adduced on the opposite side may
be explained, so as to be consistent with the position maintained ;
it being, of course, a strong argument in favour of the truth of
any doctrine, that the passages adduced against it can be shown
to be consistent with it, without its being necessary to have re-
course to so much force and straining as are required in order
to make the opposite doctrine appear to be consistent with the
passages that are adduced against it. Thirdly, The investigation
of the question, which doctrine is most consistent with a combined
and harmonious interpretation of all the passages bearing upon
the subject, — which of them most fully and readily suggests, or
admits of, the laying down of general positions, that, wlien com-
bined together, embrace and exhaust the whole of the informa-
tion given us in Scripture regarding it.

Now I believe that under each of these three heads it can be,
and has been, shown that the doctrine of a definite or limited
3 — VOL. II. Y

338 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

atonement — limited, that is, as to its destination and intended
objects — has a decided superiority over the opposite one, and is
therefore to be received as tlie true doctrine of Scripture. It has
a clearer and firmer support in particular statements of Scripture,
that do not, plausibly or fairly, admit of being explained away.
More obvious and satisfactory reasons can be assigned why in-
definite and general language should be employed upon the sub-
ject, without its being intended to express absolute universality,
— to include the whole human race, and all the individuals who
compose it, — than can be adduced in explanation of language
which indicates a limitation, if Christ died for all men. And,
lastly, it is easier to present a combined and harmonious view
of the whole information given us in Scripture upon the subject,
if the doctrine of a limited or definite atonement be maintained,
than if it be denied.

The materials of the first of these divisions consist exclusively
of the examination of the meaning and import of particular texts;
and this is the basis and foundation of the whole argument. A
very admirable and masterly summary of the direct scriptural
evidence will be found in the first part of Dr. Candlish's re-
cently published book on the Atonement. I shall only make a
few observations upon the topics comprehended in the other two
heads.

No scriptural statements are, or even appear to be, inconsistent
with the doctrine of a limited atonement, which merely assert or
imply that Christ's sufferings were sufficient, in point of intrinsic
worth and value, for the redemption of the whole human race ; or
that all men do in fact derive some benefits or advantages from
Christ's death, and that God intended that they should enjoy
these. We have already shown, in explaining the state of this
question, that the advocates of a limited atonement do not deny,
and are under no obligation in point of consistency to deny,
these positions. Neither is it inconsistent with our doctrine that
God's sending, or giving. His Son should be represented as re-
sulting from, and indicating, love to the world or to mankind in
general, — (juXavOpwiria. If God intended that all men should
derive some benefits and advantages from Christ's mediation, this
may be regarded as indicating, in some sense, love or kindness to
the human race in general, though He did not design or intend
giving His Son to save every individual of the human family, or

Sec. IX.] EVIDENCE AS TO EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 339

to do anything directed to that object. There is another race of
fallen creatures under God's moral government, for whose salva-
tion— for the salvation of any of whom — He made no provision.
And God may be truly said to have loved the world, or the
human race, or the family of man, as distinguished from, or to
the exclusion of, the fallen angels ; and as the result of this
love, to have sent His Son, although He had no purpose of, and
made no provision for, saving them all. On the other hand, it
should be remembered that Christ's dying for all men necessarily
implies that God loved all men individually, and loved them so
as to have, in some sense, desired and intended to save them ;
and that everything which proves that God did not desire and
intend to save all men, equally proves that Christ did not die for
them all ; and that everything which must be taken in, to limit
or modify the position that God desired and intended, or pur-
posed, the salvation of all men, must equally limit or modify the
position that Christ died for all. The scriptural evidence of
these two positions is usually produced indiscriminately by the
advocates of universal atonement, as equally proving their doc-
trine. And if, on the one hand, they afford each other some
mutual countenance and support, so, on the other, they must be
burdened with each other's difficulties, and must be both exposed
to the explanations or modifications which each or either may
suggest or require.

A favourite passage of our opponents is, " Who will have all
men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth ;"
and again, " Who gave Himself a ransom for all."* Now, inde-
pendently altogether of the clear evidence which the context fur-
nishes,— that the " all men " must mean men of all sorts, without
any distinction of kinds or classes, and not all men, the whole
human race, singly and individually, — it is plain that God will
have all men to be saved, in the same sense, and with the same
limitations and modifications, under which Christ gave Himself a
ransom for all, and vice versa. And it is further evident, that
God will have all men to be saved, in the same sense, and to the
same extent only, in which " He will have all men to come to the
knowledge of the truth." Now we know that God does not, in
any strict and proper sense, will all men (omnes et singulos) to

* 1 Tim. ii. 4, 6.

340 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

come to the knowledge of the truth, though He has imposed upon
all men who hear the truth an obligation to receive it ; and it is
proof sufficient that He does not will all men — that is, under-
standing thereby all the individuals of the human race — to come
to the knowledge of the truth, that there are, and have always
been, very many of the human race from whom He has withheld
the means and the opportunity of knowing it. And from all this
taken together, it plainly follows that these statements contain no
warrant whatever for the doctrine, that God desired and intended
the salvation of all the individuals of our race, or that Christ
gave Himself a ransom for them all.

There is one great and manifest advantage which the doc-
trine of a limited atonement possesses over the opposite doctrine,
viewed with reference to the comparative facility with which the
language of Scripture can be interpreted, so as to accord with it ;
and this is, that it is much more easy to understand and explain
how, in accordance with the ordinary sentiments and practice of
men, general or indefinite language may have been employed,
when strict and proper universality was not meant, than to ex-
plain why limited or definite language should ever have been
employed, if there was really no limitation in the object or desti-
nation of the atonement. The fair principle of interpretation is,
to make the definite and limited statements the standard for
explaining the general and indefinite ones, and not the reverse ;
especially as Scripture furnishes many examples in which all the
unlimited expressions that are applied to the death of Christ,
viewed in relation to its objects, — the world, the whole world, all,
every, etc., — are used, when no proper and absolute, but merely a
relative or comparative, universality was intended.

In addition, however, to this general consideration, which is
evidently of great weight and importance, the defenders of a
limited atonement assert, and undertake to prove, not only that
there are scriptural statements which cannot, by any fair process
of interpretation, be reconciled with the doctrine of universal
atonement, but also, that in all the passages in which Christ is
spoken of as dying for the world, or for all, there is something in
the passage or context which affords sufficient evidence that the
all is not to be understood literally and absolutely as applicable to
each and every individual of the human race, but with some re-
striction or limitation, according to the nature and relations of the

Sec. IX.] EVIDENCE AS TO EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 341

subject treated of, or the particular object for which the state-
ment is made. This position is thus expressed by Turretine in
his chapter on the object of Christ's satisfaction:* " Nuspiam
Christus dicitur in Scriptura pro omnibus mortuus, quin ibidem
addatur limitatio, ex qua colligitur hoc non universahter, de
omnibus et singulis esse intelligendum, sed restricte pro subject^
materia." And though this position may, at first sight, seem a
bold and startling one, I have no doubt it can be established by
an examination of all the particular passages referred to ; and I
have always regarded the ease and certainty with which, in most
cases, this limitation can be pointed out and proved, and the fair
and reasonable evidence that can be adduced of it, in all cases
as affording a very strong general corroboration of the truth of
our doctrine. In many of these general and unlimited state-
ments, the object is manifestly to indicate merely that those for
whom Christ died are not confined to any one nation, class, or
description of men, — the world, or the whole world, evidently
meaning mankind at large, Gentiles as well as Jews, — a truth
which it was then peculiarly necessary to enforce, and to bring
out in the fullest and strongest terms, in consequence of the abuse
made of the selection of the Jews as God's peculiar people. In
not a few, a limitation is plainly indicated in the context as implied
in the nature, relations, or characteristics of the general subject
treated of ; and in several instances a careful examination of pas-
sages which, when superficially considered and judged of merely
by the sound, seem to favour the idea of a universal atonement,
not only shows that they afford it no real countenance, but fur-
nishes strong presumptions, if not positive proofs, against it. I am
persuaded that most men who had not examined the subject with
care, and had had pressed upon their attention the collection of
texts usually adduced by the defenders of a universal atonement,
would be somewhat surprised to find how quickly they evaporated
before even a cursory investigation ; and how very small was the
residuum that really involved any serious difficulty, or required
anything like straining to bring out of them a meaning that was
perfectly consistent with the doctrine of particular redemption.

The case is widely different with the attempt of our opponents
to harmonize with their views the passages on which our doctrine

* Turrettin., Loc. xiv. Qu. xiv. sec. xxxvi.

342 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

is more immediately founded. The more carefully they are ex-
amined, the more clearly will they be seen to carry iueradicably
the idea of a limitation in the purpose or destination of the atone-
ment, and of a firmly established and indissoluble connection
between Christ's dying for men, and these men actually enjoying,
in consequence, all spiritual blessings, and attaining ultimately to
eternal salvation. And then, on the other hand, the attempts of
our opponents to explain them, so as to make them consistent
with the doctrine of universal atonement, are wholly unsuccessful.
These attempts are commonly based, not on an examination of
the particular passages themselves, or anything in their context
and general scope, but upon mere indefinite and far-fetched con-
siderations, which are not themselves sufficiently established to
afford satisfactory solutions of other difficulties. Arminians com-
monly consider the passages which seem to indicate a limitation
in the object of the atonement, as referring to the application, as
distinguished and separated from the impetration or purchase of
the blessings of redemption ; while Calvinistic universalists usu-
ally regard them as referring to God's special design to secure the
salvation of the elect, which they hold in combination with an
alleged design or purpose to do something by means of a universal
atonement, directed to the salvation of all men.

Now, independently of the consideration that these views of the
two different classes of universalists are not themselves proved to
be true, and cannot therefore be legitimately applied in this way,
their application of them in this matter is liable to this fatal objec-
tion, that in Scripture it is the very same things which are predi-
cated of men, both with and without a limitation. The state &f
the case is,, not that the indications of limitation are exhibited
when it is the application, and the indications of universality when
it is the impetration, of spiritual blessings that is spoken of ; nor,
the one, when something peculiar to the elect, and the other, when
something common to mankind in general, is described. It is the
same love of God to men, the same death of Christ, and the
same ransom price paid for men, that are connected both with the
limited and the unlimited phraseology. God loved the world, and
Christ loved His Church ; Christ died for all, and He died for His
sheep ; lie gave Himself a ransom for all, and lie gave Himself a
ransom for many ; and there is no warrant whatever for alleging
that, in the one case, the love, and the death, and the ransom are

Sec. X.] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT AND GOSPEL OFFER. 343

descriptive of totally different things from what they describe in
the other. Tiie very same things are predicated of the two
classes, the all and the sheep, the all and the many ; and there-
fore the fair inference is, that they are not really two different
classes., hut one and the same class, somewhat differently described,
and of course regarded under somewhat different aspects. The
universalists, whether Arminians or Calvinists, do not predicate
the same, but different things, of the two classes, — the all and the
sheep, the all and the many, — while the Scripture predicates the
same, and not different things, of both ; and this consideration
not only refutes the method of combining and harmonizing the
various scriptural statements upon this subject adopted by our
opponents, but shows the soundness and sufficiency of that which
we propose. We say that Christ died, and gave His life a ransom
for some men only, — those whom the Father had given Him ; and
not for all men, — that is, not for all the individuals of the human
race, without exception, — but that those for whom He died are
indeed all men, or mankind in general, without distinction of age
or country, character or condition, — no class or description of men
being excluded, — a sense in which we can prove that " all men"
is often used in Scripture. And this combines in harmony the
different statements which Scripture contains upon the subject ;
whereas the universalists are obliged, in order to harmonize
scriptural statements, either to reject altogether the fair and
natural meaning of those which represent Him as dying for some
only, or else to maintain that He died for some men in one sense,
and for all men, without exception, in a different sense ; while
they cannot produce, either from the particular passages, or from
any other declarations of Scripture, evidence of the different
senses in which they must understand the declarations that He
died for men, and gave Himself a ransom for them.*

Sec. 10. — Extent of Atonement and Gospel Offer.

Without dwelling longer upon this topic of the mode of in-
terpreting particular passages of Scripture, I would now advert

* The question turns very much
upon this point, Whether the two
classes of passages teach two distinct
and different truths, or can be, and

should be, combined into one. Vide
Wardlaw on the Nature and Extent
of the Atonement, Dis. vi. ; and Dr.
Candliflh's Preliminary Dissertatiou.

344 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

briefly to some of the arguments for and against the doctrine of
universal atonement, which are derived from more general con-
siderations,— that is, from its consistency or inconsistency with
other truths taught in Scripture, and with the general scheme of
Scripture doctrine, or what is commonly called the analogy of
faith.

By far the most important and plausible of the scriptural
arguments in support of it, and the only one we mean to notice,
is the alleged necessity of a universal atonement, or of Christ's
having died for all men, as the only consistent ground or basis on
which the offers and invitations of the gospel can be addressed
indiscriminately to all men. We fully admit the general fact
upon which the argument is based, — namely, that in Scripture,
men, without distinction and exception, have salvation, and all
that leads to it, offered or tendered to them, — that they are invited
to come to Christ and to receive pardon, — and assured that all
who accept the offer, and comply with the invitation, shall receive
everything necessary for their eternal welfare. We fully admit
that God in the Bible does all this, and authorizes and requires
us to do the same in dealing with our fellow-men. Very few
Calvinists have ever disputed the propriety and the obligation of
addressing to men, indiscriminately, without distinction or excep-
tion, the offers and invitations of Gospel mercy ; and the few who
have fallen into error upon this subject — such as Dr. Gill, and
some of the ultra-Calvinistic English Baptists of last century —
have usually based their refusal to offer to men indiscriminately
pardon and acceptance, and to invite any or all to come to Christ
that they might receive these blessings, upon the views they
en|;ertained, not about a limitation of the atonement, but about
the entire depravity of human nature, — men's inability to repent
and believe. This topic of the consistency of a limited atone-
ment with the unlimited offers and invitations of Gospel mercy,
or of the alleged necessity of a universal atonement as the only
ground or basis on which such offers and invitations can rest,
has been very fully discussed. We can only suggest a few hints
in regard to it.

There are obviously two questions that may be entertained
upon this subject : First, Is an unlimited atonement necessary in
order to warrant ministers of the gospel, or any who may be
seeking to lead others to the saving knowledge of the truth, to

Sec. X.] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT AND GOSPEL OFFER. 345

offer to men, without exception, pardon and acceptance, and to
invite them to come to Christ ? And, secondly. Is an unlimited
atonement necessary in order to warrant God in addressing, and
in authorizing and requiring us to address, such universal offers
and invitations to our fellow-men ? The neglect of keeping these
two questions distinct, has sometimes introduced error and con-
fusion into the discussion of this subject. It is the first question
with which we have more immediately to do, as it affects a duty
which we are called upon to discharge ; while the second is evi-
dently, from its very nature, one of those secret things which
belong unto the Lord. It is very evident that our conduct, in
preaching the gospel, and in addressing our fellow-men with a
view to their salvation, should not be regulated by any inferences
of our own about the nature, extent, and sufficiency of the pro-
vision actually made for saving them, but solely by the directions
and instructions which God has given us, by precept or example,
to guide us in the matter, — unless, indeed, we venture to act upon
the principle of refusing to obey God's commands, until we fully
understand all the grounds and reasons of them. God has com-
manded the gospel to be preached to every creature; He has
required us to proclaim to our fellow-men, of whatever character,
and in all varieties of circumstances, the glad tidings of great
joy, — to hold out to them, in His name, pardon and acceptance
through the blood of atonement, — to invite them to come to
Christ, and to receive Him, — and to accompany all this with the
assurance that " whosoever cometh to Him, He will in no wise
cast out." God's revealed will is the only rule, and ought to be
held to be the sufficient warrant for all that we do in this matter,
— in deciding what is our duty, — in making known to our fellow-
men what are their privileges and obligations, — and in setting
before them reasons and motives for improving the one and dis-
charging the other. And though this revelation does not war-
rant us in telling them that Christ died for all and each of the
human race, — a mode of preaching the gospel never adopted by
our Lord and His apostles, — yet it does authorize and enable us
to lay before men views and considerations, facts and arguments,
zv/iic/i, in right reason^ should warrant and persuade all to whom
they are addressed, to lay hold of the hope set before them, — to
turn into the stronghold as prisoners of hope.

The second question, as to the conduct of God in this matter,

346 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

leads into much greater difficulties, — but difficulties which we are
not bound, as we have no ground to expect to be able, to solve.
The position of our opponents is in substance this, — that it was
not possible for God, because not consistent with integrity and
uprightness, to address such offers and invitations to men indis-
criminately, unless an atonement, which is indispensable to salva-
tion, had been presented and accepted on behalf of all men, — of
each individual of the human race. Now this position bears very
manifestly the character of unwarranted presumption, and assumes
our capacity of fully comprehending and estimating the eternal
purposes of the divine mind, — the inmost grounds and reasons of
the divine procedure. It cannot be proved — because there is really
not any clear and certain medium of probation — that God, by
offering to men indiscriminately, without distinction or exception,
through Christ, pardon and acceptance, contradicts the doctrine
which He has revealed to us in His own word, as to a limitation,
not in the intrinsic sufficiency, but in the intended destination of
the atonement. And unless this can be clearly and conclusively
proved, we are bound to believe that they are consistent with
each other, though we may not be able to perceive and develope
this consistency, and of course to reject the argument of our
opponents as untenable. When we carefully analyze all that is
really implied in what God says and does, or authorizes and re-
quires us to say and do in this matter, we can find much that is
fitted to show positively that God does not, in offering pardon and
acceptance to men indiscriminately, act inconsistently or decep-
tively, though it is not true that the atonement was universal.
And it is easy to prove that He does no injustice to any one ;
since all who believe what He has revealed to them, and who do
what He has given them sufficient motives or reasons for doing,
will certainly obtain salvation. And although difficulties will still
remain in the matter, which cannot be fully solved, it is easy to
show that they just resolve into the one grand difficulty of all
religion, and of every system of theology, — that, namely, of re-
conciling, or rather of developing, the consistency between the
supremacy and sovereignty of God, and the free agency and
responsibility of man. In arguing with Calvinistic universalists,
there is no great difficulty in showing that the principles on
which they defend their Calvinistic views, upon other points,
against Arminian objections, are equally available for defending

Sec. X.] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT AND GOSPEL OFFER. 347

the doctrine of a limited atonement against the objection we are
now considering ; and that the distinctions which they attempt to
estabhsh between the two cases are either altogether unfounded,
or, if they have some truth and *reality in them (as, for instance,
that founded on the difference between natural and moral inability,
— a distinction which seems to have been first fully developed by
Cameron, and with a special view to this very point), do not go to
the root of the matter,^ — do not affect the substance of the case, —
and leave the grand difficulty, though slightly altered in the posi-
tion it occupies, and in the particular aspect in which it is pre-
sented, as strong and formidable as ever.

Though the advocates of a universal atonement are accustomed
to boast much of the support which, they allege, their doctrine
derives from the scriptural statements about God's loving the
world, — Christ's dying for all ; yet many of them are pretty well
aware that they really have but little that is formidable to advance,
except the alleged inconsistency of the doctrine of a limited atone-
ment with the unlimited or indiscriminate offers of pardon and
acceptance, — the unlimited or indiscriminate invitations and com-
mands to come to Christ and to lay hold on Him, — which God
addresses to men in His word, and which He has authorized and
required us to address to our fellow-men. The distinction between
the ground and warrant of men's act and of God's act in this
matter, not only suggests materials for answering the arguments
of opponents, but it also tends to remove a certain measure of
confusion, or misconception, sometimes exhibited upon this point
by the defenders of the truth. Some of them are accustomed to
say that the ground or warrant for the universal or unlimited
offers of pardon, and commands to believe, is the infinite intrinsic
sufficiency of Christ's atonement, which they generally hold,
though denying its universal intended destination or efficiency ;
while others profess to rest the universal offers and commands
upon the simple authority of God in His word, — making them
Himself, and requiring us to proclaim them to others.

Now it is evident that these two things are not, as the lan-
guage of some orthodox divines might lead us to suppose, con-
trasted with, or opposed to, each other. The sole ground or
warrant for men's act, in offering pardon and salvation to their
fellow-men, is the authority and command of God in His word.
We have no other warrant than this ; we need no other ; and we

348 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

should seek or desire none ; but on this ground alone should con-
sider ourselves not only warranted, but bound, to proclaim to our
fellow-men, whatever be their country, character, or condition,
the good news of the kingdom, and to call upon them to come to
Christ that they may be saved, — the Bible affording us sufficient,
yea, abundant materials for convincing them that, in right reason,
they ought to do this, and for assuring them that all who do, shall
obtain eternal life. But this has manifestly nothing to do with
the question as to the ground or warrant of God's act in making
unlimited offers, and in authorizing us to make them.

In regard to the allegation often made by orthodox divines, that
this act of God is warranted by, and is based upon, the infinite
intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's atonement, we would only remark
— for we cannot enter into the discussion — that we are not aware
of any Scripture evidence that these two things — namely, the
universal intrinsic sufficiency and the unlimited offers — are con-
nected in this way, — that we have never been able to see how the
assertion of this connection removed or solved the difficulty, or
threw any additional light upon this subject, — and that therefore
we think it best while unhesitatingly doing ourselves, in our inter-
course with our fellow-men, all that God's word authorizes and
requires, to be contented with believing the general position, —
that God in this, as in everything else, has chosen the best and
wisest means of accomplishing all that He really intended to
effect ; and to be satisfied — so far as the objection of opponents
is concerned — with showing that it cannot be proved that there
is any inconsistency or insincerity, that there is any injustice or
deception, on God's part, in anything which He says or does in
this matter, even though the intended destination of the atone-
ment was to effect and secure the forgiveness and salvation of the
elect only, — even though He did not design or purpose, by send-
ing His Son into the world, to save any but those who are saved.

Sec. 11. — Extent of Atonement^ and its Object.

We must now notice the arguments against the doctrine of
universal atonement derived from doctrines or principles taught
in Scripture, as distinguished from particular scriptural state-
ments bearing immediately upon the precise point ; leaving out
of view, however, in the meantime, and in the first instance,

Sec. XI.] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT, AND ITS OBJECT. 349

for reasons formerly stated, the arguments derived from its in-
consistency with the doctrine of election, or any of what are
commonly reckoned the peculiarities of Calvinism. The leading
scriptural arguments against the doctrine of universal atonement,
in the sense and with the limitation Just explained, are these :
First, that it is inconsistent with the scriptural account of the
proper nature, and immediate objects and effects, of the suffer-
ings and death of Christ, as a vicarious atonement ; and, secondly,
that it is inconsistent with the scriptural account of the invariable
and certain connection between the impetration or purchase, and
the application to men individually, of all spiritual blessings.
The second general argument admits of being broken down into
several different divisions, or distinct positions, each of which can
be established by its own appropriate scriptural evidence, — as,
first, that " the oblation or sacrifice and intercession of Christ are
one entire means respecting the accomplishment of the same pro-
posed end, and have the same personal object," — a proposition
elaborately established by Dr. Owen, whose words I have adopted
in stating it ;* and secondly, that the operation of the Holy Spirit,
in producing faith and regeneration in men individually, and faith
and regeneration themselves viewed as the gifts of God, are the
fruits of Christ's satisfaction and obedience, and are conferred
upon all in whose room He suffered and died. If these doctrines
be true, they manifestly preclude the idea of an atonement that
was universal, unlimited, or indefinite in its destination or in-
tended objects and effects. But I will not dwell upon any of
this class of topics, though they are very important, — and will
only make some observations upon the inconsistency of the doc-
trine of an unlimited atonement, with scriptural views of the
proper nature and immediate objects and effects of Christ's death,
in further illustration of the important principle, which has been
repeatedly adverted to, — namely, that the nature of the atone-
ment settles or determines the question of its extent.

The plan usually adopted by the universalists in discussing
this fundamental department of the subject, is to lay down an
arbitrary definition of what atonement means in general, or in the
abstract, and of what are the kinds of purposes it was intended to
serve ; and this definition of theirs usually amounts, in substance,

* Owen, Death of Christ, Book i. cliaps. vii. viii.

350 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

to something of this sort, — namely, that an atonement is an ex-
pedient, or provision — any expedient or provision — whereby the
great ends of law and government may be promoted and secured,
without its being necessary to inflict the penalty of the law upon
those who had incurred it by transgression ; thus removing ob-
stacles, and opening a door to their being pardoned. If this
definition really embraced all that the Scripture makes known to
us concerning the nature and immediate objects of the atonement
of Christ, then it might possibly be universal or unlimited ; for,
according to this view, it was fitted and intended only to make the
pardon and salvation of sinners possible, — to leave it free and
open to God to pardon any or all of them, as He might choose.

Now we do not say that this definition of an atonement, as
applied to the death of Christ, is false ; though some of the terms
in which it is usually embodied — such as an expedient — are not
very suitable or becoming. It is, in substance, a true description
of the death of Christ, so far as it goes, — just as the Socinian view
of it, as a testimony and an example, is true. The definition to
which we have referred is really suggested by some scriptural
views of what the death of Christ was, and of what it was intended
to effect. And it accords also with some of the analogies sug-
gested by human government and laws. What we maintain upon
this point is, that it does not present a full and complete definition
or description of the nature and immediate objects of the death of
Christ, as they are represented to us in Scripture ; and that there-
fore it is altogether unwarrantable to lay it down as the definition
of an atonement, by which we are to judge — for this is practically
the application the universalists make of their definition — of what
an atonement must be, and of what views we ought to take of
Christ's death. The analogies suggested by the principles of
human government, and the applications of human laws, — though
they are not without their use in illustrating this matter, — must be
very imperfect. The death of One, who was at once a possessor
of the divine nature, and at the same time a perfectly holy and
innocent man, and whose death was intended to effect the salva-
tion of men who, by transgression, had become subject to the
wrath and curse of God, must necessarily be altogether unique
and sui generis, and must not be estimated or judged of by any
antecedent conceptions, or comprehended in any arbitrary defini-
tions of ours. We can comprehend it only by taking in the whole

Sec. XL] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT, AND ITS OBJECT. 351

of the information which Scripture communicates to us regarding
it ; we can define and describe it aright only by embodying all the
elements which have scriptural "warrant or sanction. An atone-
ment is just that, he it what it may, which the death of Christ was ;
and the proper definition of an atonement is that which takes in
all, and not only some, of the aspects in which the death of Christ
is actually presented to us in Scripture. That it was a great pro-
vision for securing the ends of government and law, even while
transgressors were pardoned and saved, — that it embodies and ex-
hibits most impressive views of the perfections of God, of the ex-
cellence of His law, and of the sinfulness of sin, — that it affords
grounds and reasons on which transgressors may be pardoned and
saved, while yet the great principles of God's moral government
are maintained, and its ends are secured ; — all this is true and
important, but all this does not exhaust the scriptural views of
the death of Christ, and therefore it should not be set forth as con-
stituting the definition of an atonement. The Scripture tells us
something more than all this, by giving more definite and specific
information concerning the true nature of Christ's death, and the
way and manner in which, from its very nature, it is fitted to effect,
and does effect, its immediate intended objects. These considera-
tions may be of some use in leading us to be on our guard against
the policy usually pursued by the universalists, in paving the way
for the introduction of their views, and providing for themselves
a shield against objections, by laying down an arbitrary and
defective definition of an atonement.

The two leading ideas, which are admitted to be involved in
the doctrine of the atonement by almost all who repudiate Socinian
views, are — as we formerly explained at length — substitution and
satisfaction. And the substance of what we maintain upon the
subject now under consideration is just this, — that these two ideas,
when understood in the sense in which Scripture warrants and
requires us to understand them, and when clearly and distinctly
realized, instead of bemg diluted and explained away, preclude
and disprove the doctrine of a universal atonement. Substitution
— or taking the place and acting in the room and stead of others
— naturally and obviously suggests the notion, that those others,
whose place was taken, — in whose room or stead something was
done or suffered, — were a distinct and definite class of persons, who
were conceived of, and contemplated individually, and not a mere

352 DOCTRINE OP THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

indefinite mass, indiscriminately considered. Mediation, or inter-
position in behalf of others, understood in a general and indefinite
sense, without any specification of the nature or kind of the
mediation or interposition, may respect a mass of men, viewed in-
discriminately and in the gross ; but mediation or interposition, in
the form or by means of substitution in their room, or taking their
place, naturally suggests the idea that certain particular men were
contemplated, whose condition and circumstances individually were
known, and whose benefit individually was aimed at. This idea
is thus expressed by Witsius : * " Neque fieri nobis ullo modo
posse videtur, ut quis Christum pro omnibus et singulis hominibus
mortuum ex animi sententia contendat, nisi prius enervata phrasi
ilia pro aliquo mori, qua substitutionem in locum alterius notari
nuper contra Socinianos evicimus." Witsius thought that no man
could honestly and intelligently contend for the truth of the doc-
trine, that Christ had died for all men, until he had first enervated
or explained away what was implied in the phrase, of dying in the
room and stead of another ; and there is much in the history of
theological discussion to confirm this opinion.

This extract, however, from Witsius reminds us that the doc-
trine of the atonement, as maintained against the Socinians, in-
cludes the idea not only of substitution, but also of satisfaction ;
and the examination of this notion affords clearer and more explicit
evidence that Christ did not die for all men, or for any who ulti-
mately perish. If anything be really established in opposition to
the Socinians upon this subject, it is this, — that Christ not only
took the place, or substituted Himself in the room and stead of
sinners, but that He suffered and died in their room and stead, —
that is, that He suffered what was due to them, and what, but for
His suffering it in their stead, they must have endured. Of course
we do not found upon the idea — for, as we have already explained,
we do not believe it to be true — that Christ's sufferings, in point
of amount and extent, were just adequate to satisfy for the sins of
a certain number of persons. We have no doubt that He would
have endured no more, though many more had been to be saved.
Still Plis sufferings were the endurance of a penal infliction. And
they were the endurance of the penalty which men had incurred,
— of that penalty itself, or of a full equivalent for it, in point of

* De (Econ. Foed. lib. ii. c. ix. s. 1.

Sec. XI.] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT, AND ITS OBJECT. 353

legal worth or value, and not of a mere substitute for it, as the
universalists commonly allege. The law, which men had broken,
appointed a penalty to each of them individually, — a penalty to
the infliction of which each was individually liable. And unless
the law was to be wholly relaxed or set aside, there must, for
each individual who had transgressed, be the compliance with the
law's demands, — that is, the infliction of this penalty, either upon
himself, or on a substitute acting — qualified to act — and accepted
as acting, in his room and stead. The transgression was per-
sonal, and so must be the infliction of the penalty. If the trans-
gression, and the corresponding infliction of the penalty, were
in their nature personal, and had respect to men individually,
so, in like manner, must any transactions or arrangements that
might be contemplated and adopted with a view to the transfer-
ence of the penalty ; so that, it being borne by another, those in
whose room He bore it might escape unpunished, the law being
satisfied by another suffering the penalty which it prescribed in
their stead.

The Scripture, however, not only represents Christ, in suffer-
ing and dying, as substituting Himself in our room, — as endur-
ing the penalty which we had incurred, and must otherwise have
endured, — and as thus satisfying the divine justice and law in our
stead ; but also as thereby reconciling men to God, or purchasing
for them reconciliation and pardon. This, the direct and im-
mediate effect of the death of Christ, in its bearing upon men's
condition, naturally and necessarily suggests the idea of a distinct
and definite number of persons in whose behalf it was effected,
and who are at length certainly to receive it. It is not recon-
ciliability, but reconciliation, that the Scripture represents as the
immediate object or effect of Christ's death ; and this implies a
personal change in the relation of men individually to God. And
it is no sufficient reason for explaining this away, as meaning
something far short of the natural and obvious import of the
words, that men individually were not reconciled when Christ
died, but receive reconciliation and pardon individually during
their abode upon earth, according as God is pleased effectually to
call them. We assume — as we are fully warranted in doing —
that reconciliation with God and forgiveness of sin, wherever
they are possessed and enjoyed, in any age or country, stand in
the same relation to the death of Christ as the reconciliation and

3 — VOL. II. Z

354 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

pardon which the apostles enjoyed are represented by them as
doing ; and that is, that they were immediately procured or pur-
chased by it, and that their application, in due time, to all for
whom they were purchased, was effectually secured by it. If
this be the relation subsisting between the death of Christ and
the reconciliation and pardon of sinners. He must, in dying, have
contemplated, and provided for, the actual reconciliation and
pardon of men individually, — that is, of all those, and of those
only, who ultimately receive these blessings, whatever other steps
or processes may intervene before they are actually put in posses-
sion of them.

The leading peculiar views generally held by Arminians —
at least those of them who bring out their views most fully and
plainly — are, as we formerly explained, these : first, that they
do not regard Christ as suffering the penalty due to sinners, nor
even a full equivalent — an adequate compensation — for it, but
only a substitute for it ; secondly, that there was a relaxation
of the law in the forgiveness of sinners, not merely in regard to
the person suffering, but also the penalty suffered, since it was
not even in substance executed ; and thirdly, that the direct
immediate effect of Christ's death was not to procure for men
reconciliation and pardon, but merely to remove legal obstacles,
and to open a door for God bestowing these blessings on any men,
or all men. These views they seem to have been led to adopt by
their doctrine about the universality of an atonement ; and as the
universality of the atonement naturally leads to those methods of
explaining, or rather explaining away, its nature, — its relation to
the law, and its immediate object and effect, — the establishment
and application of the true scriptural views of substitution, satis-
faction, and reconciliation, as opposed to the three Arminian
doctrines upon these points stated above, exclude or disprove its
universality, — or its intended destination to any but those who are
ultimately pardoned and saved. Substitution, satisfaction, and
reconciliation may be so explained — that is, may be wrapped up in
such vague and ambiguous generalities — as to suggest no direct
reference to particular men, considered individually, as the objects
contemplated and provided for in the process ; but the statements
of Scripture, when we carefully investigate their meaning, and
realize the ideas which they convey, — and which they must con-
vey, unless we are to sink down to Socinianism, — bring these

Sec. XL] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT, AND ITS OBJECT. 355

topics before us in aspects which clearly imply that Christ sub-
stituted Himself in the room of some men, and not of all men, —
that all for whose sins He made satisfaction to the divine justice
and law, certainly receive reconciliation and pardon, — and that,
when they do receive them, they are bestowed upon each of them
on the ground that Christ suffered in his room and stead, expiated
Ids sins upon the cross, and thereby effectually secured his eternal
salvation, and everything that this involves.

It has been vei?y ably and ingeniously argued, in opposition to
the doctrine of universal atonement, and especially in favour of the
consistency of the unlimited offers of the gospel with a limited atone-
ment, that the thing that is offered to men in the gospel is just that
which they actually receive, and become possessed of, when they
individually accept the offer ; and that this is nothing vague and
indefinite, — not a mere possibility and capacity, — but real, actual
reconciliation and pardon. This is true, and very important ; but
the process of thought on which the argument is based, might be
carried further back, even into the very heart and essential nature
of the atonement, in this way. What men receive when they are
individually united to Christ by faith, — that is, actual reconciliation
and pardon, — is that which is offered or tendered to them before
they believe. But that which is offered to them before they believe,
is just that which Christ impetrated or purchased for them ; and
what it was that Christ impetrated or purchased for them, depends
upon what was the true nature and character of His death. And
if Plis death was indeed a real satisfaction to the divine justice
and law in men's room, by being the endurance in their stead of
the penalty due to them, — and in this way affording ground or
reason for treating them as if they had never broken the law, or
as if they had fully borne in their own persons the penalty which
it prescribed, — we can thus trace through the whole process by
which sinners are admitted into the enjoyment of God's favour,
a necessary reference to particular men considered individually, a
firm and certain provision for the reconciliation and pardon of all
for whom, or in whose stead, Christ died, for purchasing redemp-
tion only for those who were to be ultimately saved, and of course
for applying its blessings to all for whom they were designed.

Those more strict and definite views of substitution, satisfac-
tion, and reconciliation, which thus exclude and disprove an un-
limited or indefinite atonement, that did not respect particular

356 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

men, viewed individually, while clearly sanctioned by scriptural
statements, can also be shown to be necessarily involved in the full
and consistent development, even of those more defective views
which the universalist^ would substitute in their room. The
death of Christ, according to them, operates upon men's relation
to God and their eternal welfare, not by its being an endurance
of the penalty of the law in their room, and thus satisfying divine
justice, but merely by its being suffering inflicted vice poenw^ as
we saw in Limborch, or as a substitute for the penalty ; and as
thus presenting certain views of God's character, government, and
law, which, when impressed upon men's minds, would prevent any
erroneous views, or any injurious consequences, arising from their
sins being pardoned. Now — not to dwell again upon the serious
objection to this principle, when set forth as a -full account of the
doctrine of the atonement, from its involving no provision what-
ever for the actual exercise, but only for the apparent outward
manifestation, of the divine perfections — it is important to notice
that it is not easy to see how the death of Christ is fitted to pro-
duce the requisite impressions, unless it be really regarded in the
light in which Scripture represents it, as the endurance of the
penalty of the law in our room and stead. In order to serve the
purposes ascribed to it, as an expedient of government, by pro-
ducing certain impressions upon men's minds, it must unfold the
holiness and justice of God, — the perfection and unchangeableness
of His law, — and the exceeding sinfulness and infinite danger of
sin. Now it is not merely true, as we contend, in opposition to
the Socinians, that these impressions can be produced, and the
corresponding results can be accomplished, only by an atonement,
— only by substitution and satisfaction, understood in some vague
and indefinite sense, — but also that, in order to this, there must
be true substitution, and real and proper satisfaction. The justice
and holiness of God are very imperfectly, if at all, manifested by
His inflicting some suffering upon a holy and innocent person, in
order that sinners might escape, unless that person were acting,
and had consented to act, strictly as the surety and substitute of
those who were to receive the benefit of His sufferings.

There is certainly no manifestation of the excellence and per-
fection of the divine law, or of the necessity of maintaining and
honouring it, if, in the provision made for pardoning sinners, it ■
was relaxed and set aside, — if its penalty was not inflicted,-

Sec. XL] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT, AND ITS OBJECT. 357

there was no fulfilment of its exactions, no compliance with its
demands. It is only when we regard the death of Christ in its
true scriptural character, and include, in our conceptions of it,
those more strict and definite views of substitution and satisfac-
tion, which exclude the doctrine of universal atonement, that we
can see, in the pardon of sinners, and in the provision made for
effecting it, the whole combined glory of God's moral character,
as it is presented to us in the general statements of Scripture,
and that we can be deeply impressed with right conceptions of
the perfection of the divine law, and of the honour and reverence
that are unchangeably due to it. The notion, then, that the
atonement operates upon the forgiveness of sinners, merely by its
being a great display of the principles of God's moral govern-
ment,— and this is the favourite idea in the present day of those
who advocate a universal atonement, — is not only liable to the
fatal objection of its giving defective, and, to some extent, posi-
tively erroneous views of the nature of the atonement, as it is
represented to us in Scripture, but is, moreover, so far from
being fitted to be a substitute for, and to supersede the stricter
views of, substitution and satisfaction, that it cannot stand by
itself, — that nothing can really be made of it, unless those very
views which it was designed to supersede are assumed as the
ground or basis on which it rests.

I had occasion to mention before, that there was a considerable
difference in the degree to which the Arminians allowed their doc-
trine of the extent of the atonement to affect their representations
and dilutions of its nature and immediate object, and that they
usually manifested more soundness upon this subject when con-
tending against the Socinians, than when attacking the Calvinists.
It has also generally held true that Calvinistic universalists have
not gone quite so far in explaining away the true nature of the
atonement as the Arminians have done. They have, however,
generally given sufficiently plain indications of the perverting and
injurious influence of the doctrine of universal atonement upon
right views of its nature, and never perhaps so fully as in the
present day. There are men in the present day, who still profess
to hold Calvinistic doctrines upon some points, who have scarcely
left anything in the doctrine of the atonement which a Socinian
would think it worth his while to oppose. 1 do not now refer to
those who are popularly known amongst us by the name of Mori-

358 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

sonians ; for though they began with merely asserting the univer-
sality of the atonement, they made very rapid progress in their
descent from orthodoxy; and though of but a very few years'
standing under this designation, they have long since renounced
everything Calvinistic, and may be justly regarded as now teach-
ing a system of gross, unmitigated Pelagianism. There are others,
however, both in this country and in the United States, who, while
still professing to hold some Calvinistic doctrines, have carried out
so fully and so far their notion of the atonement being not a proper
substitution or satisfaction, but a mere display, adapted to serve
the purposes of God's moral government, that it would really make
no very essential difference in their general scheme of theology,
if they were to renounce altogether the divinity of our Saviour,
and to represent His death merely as a testimony and an example.
Perhaps it is but just and fair to be somewhat more explicit
and personal upon this point, and to say plainly whom, among
the defenders of a universal atonement in our own day, I mean
— and whom I do not mean — to comprehend in this descrip-
tion. I mean to comprehend in it such writers as Dr. Beman in
America, and Dr. Jenkyn in this country ; and I do not mean to
comprehend in it Dr. Wardlaw and Dr. Payne, and writers who
agree in defending, in their way, the doctrine of a universal atone-
ment. Dr. Beman and Dr. Jenkyn both teach that the death of
Christ was a mere substitute for the penalty which the law had
prescribed, and which men had incurred ; and that it operates
upon the forgiveness of men's sins, not by its being a proper
satisfaction to the divine justice and law, but merely by its being
a display of principles the impression of which upon men's minds
is fitted to promote and secure the great ends of God's moral
government, while they are receiving the forgiveness of their sins,
and are admitted into the enjoyment of God's favour. Dr. Ward-
law, on the contrary, has always asserted the substance of the
scriptural doctrine of the atonement, as involving the ideas of
substitution and satisfaction ; and has thus preserved and main-
tained one important and fundamental branch of scriptural truth,
in the defence of which, indeed, against the Socinians, he has
rendered important services to the cause of scriptural doctrine.
The injurious tendency of the doctrine of universal or unlimited
atonement upon his views of its nature (for it will be recollected
that I at present leave out of view the connection between this

Sec. XI.] EXTENT OF ATONEMENT, AND ITS OBJECT. 359

doctrine and the peculiarities of the Calvinistic system), appear
chiefly in these respects : first, the exaggerated importance which
he sometimes attributes to the mere manifestation of the general
principles of the divine moral government, as distinguished from
the actual exercise of the divine perfections, and the actual ful-
filment and enforcement of the divine law, in the great process
adopted for pardoning and saving sinners ; and, secondly, in occa-
sional indications of dissatisfaction with some of the more strict
and definite views of substitution and satisfaction, without any
very distinct specification of what it is in these views to which he
objects.* It is not indeed to be supposed that these statements
bring out the whole of the perverting influence of the doctrine of
universal atonement upon Dr. Wardlaw's views on this subject ;
for while this is the whole extent to which he has developed its
effects upon his views of the proper nature and immediate effect
of the atonement, he of course supports the important error (as
every one who holds an unlimited atonement must do), that
Christ, by dying, did not purchase or merit faith and regenera-
tion for His people ; and that, consequently, so far as depended
upon anything that the atonement effected or secured, all men
might have perished, even though Christ died to save them.
But it must be recollected that this department, too, of the sub-
ject I set aside, as one on the discussion of which I should not
enter, confining myself to some illustration of the inconsistency
of the doctrine of universal atonement, with right views of the
nature and immediate effect of the atonement, and of its power-
ful tendency to lead men who, in the main, hold scriptural views
upon these subjects, to dilute them or explain them away.

It is very common for men who hold loose and erroneous
views in regard to substitution and satisfaction, to represent the
stricter and more definite views of these subjects, which are
necessarily connected with the doctrine of a limited atonement,
as leading to Antinomianism. But there is no great difficulty
in defending them against this objection ; for it is easy enough
to show that the highest and strictest views upon these points,
which have received the sanction of Calvinists, do not afford any
ground for the general position that the law is abrogated or set

* On the second point, vide Ward-
law's Discourses on Nature and Extent
of Atonement. — Review of Reviews in

Preface to Second Edition, pp. 41, 55,

83, 87.

360 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

aside, even in regard to believers, — and are perfectly consistent
with the truth that they are still subject to its obligation, as a
rule of life, though they are not under it "as a covenant of
works, to be thereby justified or condemned ; "* while it can also
be easily shown that they afford no countenance to the notions
of some men — who approximate to Antinomianism — about the
eternal justification of the elect, or their justification, at least,
from the time when the sacrifice of Christ in their room was
first accepted, — notions sufficiently refuted by these general posi-
tions : first, that the substitution and satisfaction of Christ form
part of a great and consistent scheme, all the parts of which are
fitted to, and indissolubly linked with each other ; and, secondly,
that it is one of the provisions of this great scheme, that, to
adopt the language of our Confession,f though " God did, from
all eternity, decree to justify all the elect ; and Christ did, in the
fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justifi-
cation : nevertheless they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit
doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them."

Sec. 12. — Extent of Atonement, and Calvinistic Principles.

We have considered the subject of the extent of the atone-
ment solely in connection with the scriptural statements bearing
upon this particular point, — and in connection with the views
taught us generally in Scripture with regard to the nature,
objects, and effects of the atonement itself, — without much more
than merely incidental allusions to the connection between this
and the other doctrines that are usually controverted between the
Calvinists and the Arminians. We have adopted this course,
because we were anxious to show that the doctrine of particular
redemption, — or of an atonement limited in its destination, though
not in its intrinsic sufficiency, — which is commonly reckoned the
weakest part of the Calvinistic system, and seems to be regarded
by many as having no foundation to rest upon except its accord-
ance with the other doctrines of Calvinism, — is quite capable of
standing upon its own proper merits, — upon its own distinct and
independent evidence, — without support from the other doctrines
which have been commonly held in combination with it. It is

* Confession, c. xix. s, 6. f C. xi. s. 4.

Sec. XII.] THE ATONEMENT, AND CALVINISTIC PRINCIPLES. 361

proper, however, to point out more distinctly, as a not unim-
portant subject of investigation, — though we can do little more
than point it out, — the bearing of this doctrine upon some of the
other departments of the Calvinistic or Arminian controversy.

The Arminians are accustomed to argue in this way : Christ
died for all men, — that is, with a purpose, design, or intention of
saving all men ; leaving it, of course, to the free will of each man
individually to determine whether or not he will concur with this
purpose of God, embrace the provision, and be saved. And if
Christ died for all men, then it follows that there could not be
any eternal decree by which some men were chosen to life, and
others passed by and left to perish. Thus, upon the alleged
universality of the atonement, they founded a distinct and inde-
pendent argument against the Calvinistic doctrine of predestina-
tion ; and this argument, as I formerly had occasion to mention,
is strongly urged by Curcellgeus and Limborch, and others of the
ablest Arminian writers. The Calvinists meet this argument by
asserting that Christ did not die for all men, but only for some,
in the sense in which I have had occasion to explain these state-
ments ; and by establishing this position on its own proper evi-
dence, they not only refute the argument against predestination,
but bring out an additional confirmation of its truth. All this
is plain enough, so far as the general sequence and connection
of the argument is concerned. But the question occurs : What
do the Calvinistic universalists make of it "? They believe that
Christ died for all men, and they also believe in the eternal,
absolute election of some men to salvation. Of course they are
bound to maintain that these two things are consistent with each
other, and on this particular point — namely, the consistency of
these two doctrines — they have both the Arminians and the
great body of the Calvinists to contend against ; for Calvinists,
in general, have admitted that, if the Arminians could establish
their position that Christ died for all men, the conclusion of the
falsehood of the Calvinistic doctrine of election could not be suc-
cessfully assailed.

The way in which this matter naturally and obviously pre-
sents itself to the mind of a believer in the doctrine of election
is this, — and it is fully accordant with Scripture, — that God must
be conceived of as, first, desiring to save some of the lost race of
men, and electing or choosing out those whom He resolved to

362 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

save, — a process which Scripture uniformly ascribes to the good
pleasure of His will, and to no other cause whatever ; and then
— that is, according to our mode of conceiving of the subject, for
there can be no real succession of time in the infinite mind —
decreeing, as the great mean in order to the attainment of this
end, and in consistency with His perfections, law, and govern-
ment, to send His Son to seeic and save them, — to suffer and
die in their room and stead. The mission of His Son, and all
that flowed from it, we are thus to regard as a result or conse-
quence of God's having chosen some men to everlasting life, and
thus adopting the best and wisest means of executing this decree,
of carrying this purpose into effect. If this be anything like the
true state of the case, then it is plain that God never had any
real design or purpose to save all men, — or to save any but those
who are saved ; and that His design or purpose of saving the
elect continued to exist and to operate during the whole process,
— regulating the divine procedure throughout, and determining
the end and object contemplated in sending Christ into the world,
and in laying our iniquities upon Him. This view of the matter,
Calvinists, in general, regard as fully sanctioned by the state-
ments of Scripture, and as fully accordant with the dictates of
right reason, exercised upon all that we learn from Scripture,
or from any other source, with respect to the divine perfections
and government. The course which the Calvinistic universalists
usually adopt in discussing this point, — in order to show at once
against the Arminians, that, notwithstanding the admitted uni-
versality of the atonement, the doctrine of election may be true,
and to show, against the generality of Calvinists, that, notwith-
standing the admitted doctrine of election, the universality of
the atonement may be true, — is this, they try to show that we
should conceive of God asjirst decreeing to send His Son into
the world to suffer and die for all men, so as to make the salva-
tion of all men possible, and to lay a foundation for tendering it
to them all ; and then, foreseeing that all men would reject this
provision, if left to themselves, decreeing to give to some men,
chosen from the human race in general, faith and repentance, by
which their salvation might be secured.

Now the discussion of these topics involves an investigation
of some of the most difficult and abstruse questions connected
with the subject of predestination ; and on these we do not at

Sec. XII.] THE ATONEMENT, AND CALVINISTIC PRINCIPLES. 363

present enter. We would only remark that the substance of the
answer given to these views of the Calvinistic universalists may-
be embodied in these positions, — leaving out the general denial of
the universality of the atonement, which is not just the precise
point at present under consideration, though sufficient of itself,
if established, to settle it. — First, that the general will or purpose
to save all men conditionally is inconsistent with scriptural views
of the divine perfections, — of the general nature and operation of
the divine decrees, — and of the principles by which the actual
salvation of men individually is determined ; and really amounts,
in substance, to a virtual, though not an intentional, betrayal of
the true Calvinistic doctrine of election into the hands of its
enemies. Secondly, and more particularly, that this method of
disposing and arranging the order of the divine decrees, — that
is, according to our mode of conceiving of them, in making the
decree to send Christ to die for men, precede the decree electing
certain men for whom He was to die, and whom, by dying, He
was certainly to save, — is inconsistent with what Scripture indi-
cates upon this subject. This is indeed, in substance, just the
question which used to be discussed between the Calvinists and
the Arminians upon the point, — whether or not Christ is the
cause and foundation of the decree of election — the Arminians
maintaining that He is, and the Calvinists that He is not, — a
question of some intricacy, but of considerable importance, in its
bearing upon the subject of election generally, which will be
found discussed and settled in Turretine,* on the decrees of God
and predestination. I may also observe that, in the last Qusestio
of the same Locus,t under the head of the order of the decrees of
God in predestination, there is a very masterly exposure of the
attempts of Calvinistic universalists to reconcile their doctrine,
in regard to the extent of the atonement, with the doctrine of
election, by deviating from what Calvinists have generally re-
garded as the right method of arranging the order of the divine
decrees, — according to our mode of conceiving of them, — by re-
presenting atonement as preceding election in the divine purpose ;
and, what is very interesting and instructive, his arguments fully
meet and dispose of all the grounds taken by the best writers on
the opposite side in our own day. In the portion of this Qusestio

* Turrettin., Loc. iv. Qurest. x. t Qusest. xviii.

364 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap, XXIV.

to which I more immediately refer, he is arguing, of course, with
the school of Cameron and Amyraldus, — the hypothetic or con-
ditional universal ists, as they were generally called by the divines
of the seventeenth century. Of the various and discordant par-
ties composing the defenders of unlimited atonement in our own
day. Dr. Wardlaw is the one whose views most entirely concur
with those of the founders of that school. His views, indeed,
exactly coincide with theirs, — he has deviated no further from
sound doctrine than they did, and not nearly so far as most of
the modern defenders of an unlimited atonement. Accordingly,
the statement which Turretine gives of the views and arguments
of those who defended universal atonement, in combination with
election, embodies the whole substance of what Dr. Wardlaw has
adduced in defence of His principles, in his work on the nature
and extent of the atonement, — and the argument is put at least
as ably and as plausibly as it has ever been since ; while Turretine,
in examining it, has conclusively answered all that Dr. Wardlaw
has adduced, or that any man could adduce, to reconcile the
doctrine of an unlimited atonement with the Calvinistic doctrine
of election.*

I think it useful to point out such illustrations of the im-
portant truth, that almost all errors in theology — some of them
occasionally eagerly embraced as novelties or great discoveries
when they happen to be revived — were discussed and settled by
the great theologians of the seventeenth century.

There is only one point in the representations and arguments
of Calvinistic universalists, to which I can advert more particu-
larly. It is the practice of describing the atonement as intended
for, and applicable to, all ; and representing the whole specialty
of the case, with reference to results, as lying, not in the atone-
ment itself, but merely in the application which God, in His sove-
reignty, resolved or decreed to make, and does make, of it ; and
then calling upon us, with the view of giving greater plausibility
to this representation, to conceive of, and to estimate, the atone-
ment by itself, and wholly apart from its application, — or from
the election of God, which, they admit, determined its application,
to individuals. Now this demand is unreasonable, — it implies
misconception, and it is fitted to lead to greater misconception.

* Loc. iv. Qu. xviii. s. xiii. "Wardlaw, pp. 77-92.

Sec. XII.] THE ATONEMENT, AND CALVINISTIC PRINCIPLES. 365

Our duty, of course, is just to contemplate the atonement, as it is
actually presented to us in Scripture, in all the connections and
relations in which it stands. We know nothing of the atonement
but what the Bible makes known to us ; and in order to know
it aright, we must view it just as the Bible represents it. The
scheme of salvation is a great system of purposes and actings, on
the part of God, or of truths and doctrines which unfold to us
these purposes and actings. The series of things, which are done
and revealed with a view to the salvation of lost men, constitute
a great and harmonious system, — devised,' superintended, and
executed by infinite wisdom and power, and complete in all its
parts, which work together for the production of glorious results.
And when we attempt to take this scheme to pieces, and to
separate what God has joined together, we are in great danger
of being left to follow our own devices, and to fall into error,
especially if we do not take care to base our full and final con-
clusions, in regard to any one department of the scheme, upon a
general survey of the whole. We admit that the atonement,
viewed by itself, is just vicarious suffering, of infinite worth and
value, and of course intrinsically suflficient to expiate the sins of
all men. There is no dispute about this point. This admission does
not satisfy our opponents, and does not in the least incommode
us. The question in dispute turns upon the destination or intended
object, not the intrinsic sufficiency, of the atonement. We cannot
conceive of anything intermediate between intrinsic sufficiency on
the one hand, and actual or intended application on the other.
The actual application of the atonement extends to those only
who believe and are forgiven. And Calvin ists — although they
may think it convenient, for controversial purposes, to argue for
a time, as Dr. Wardlaw does, upon the supposition of atonement
without election — must admit that this actual application of the
atonement was, in each case, foreseen and fore-ordained. There
could be no intended application of the atonement contrary or in
opposition to that which is actually made, and made because it
was intended from eternity. The doctrine of the atonement may
be said to consist of its intrinsic sufficiency and of its intended
application. These two heads exhaust it ; and when men hold up
what they call the atonement per se, viewed by itself and apart
from its application, and yet will not admit that this description
corresponds to, and is exhausted by, its infinite intrinsic sufficiency,

366 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV-

they must mean by this — for there is no medium — an intended
application of the atonement different from the application that is
in fact made of it, in actually pardoning and saving men. But
this is manifestly not the atonement per se, viewed by itself, and
apart from its application ; so that the supposition on which they
are fond of arguing has really no meaning or relevancy, and
tends only to perplex the subject, and to involve in doubt and
obscurity the sovereign election of God in the salvation of sinners.
The truth is, that the atonement, apart from its application,
actual or intended, cannot be conceived of in any other sense
than with reference merely to its intrinsic sufficiency ; and the
question truly in dispute really amounts, in substance, to this, —
whether, besides the actual application of the atonement to some
men, in their actual pardon and acceptance, — which of course
our Calvinistic opponents must admit to have been intended
and fore-ordained, — there was a different intended^ though never
realized, application of it to all men, — some design, purpose, or
intention, on God's part, of saving all men through its means.
And it was just because the question really turned, not upon
anything we know, or can know, about the atonement viewed in
itself, and apart from its application, but upon the purpose or
design of God in giving His Son, and of Christ in giving Him-
self, for men, that the whole subject was frequently discussed,
in the seventeenth century, under the head of universal grace, —
that is, the universal love or kindness of God, in designing and
providing, by sending His Son into the world, for the salvation
of all men ; and I am persuaded that it is chiefly from overlooking
the consideration, that the whole question does, and must, turn
upon the purpose or design of God and Christ in the matter, and
the consequent destination of what they did, — and from getting
themselves entangled in the consideration of what they call the
atonement per se^ — that any men who hold the doctrine of election
have succeeded in persuading themselves of the universality of
the atonement. The investigation of the will or decree — the pur-
pose or design — of God, in the matter, belongs properly to the
head of predestination ; and under that head Calvinistic divines
have fully proved that no such wull, purpose, or design to save
all men, as the doctrine of universal atonement necessarily im-
plies, can be reconciled with what is taught in Scripture, and
confirmed by right reason, with respect to the divine decrees.

Sec. XII.] THE ATONEMENT, AND CALVINISTIC PRINCIPLES. 367

The history of theology affords abundant evidence of the
tendency of the doctrine of universal atonement to distort and
pervert men's views of the scheme of divine truth, though of
course this tendency has been realized in very different degrees.
There have been some theologians in whose minds the doctrine
seemed to lie, without developing itself, to any very perceptible
extent, in the production of any other error. With these persons,
the doctrine, that Christ died for all men, seems to have been
little or nothing more than just the particular form or phrase-
ology in which they embodied the important truth of the warrant
and obligation to preach the gospel to every creature, — to invite
and require men, without distinction or exception, to come to
Christ, and to embrace Him, that they might receive pardon, ac-
ceptance, and eternal life. In such cases, the error really amounts
to little more than a certain inaccuracy of language, accompanied
witli some indistinctness or confusion of thought. Still it should
not be forgotten that all error is dangerous, and that this is a
point where, as experience shows, error is peculiarly apt to creep
in, in subtle and insidious disguises, and to extend its ravages
more widely over the field of Christian truth, than even the men
who cherish it may, for a time, be themselves aware of.

The first and most direct tendency of this doctrine is to lead
men to dilute and explain away — as I have illustrated at length
— the scriptural statements with respect to the true nature and
import of the substitution and satisfaction of Christ, and their
bearing upon the redemption and reconciliation of sinners. And
this introduces serious error into a most fundamental department
of Christian truth. There are men, indeed, who, while holding
the doctrine of universal atonement, still make a sound profession
in regard to the true nature and immediate effects of Christ's
death. But this is only because they do not fully comprehend
their own principles, and follow them out consistently; and of
course their tenure even of the truth they hold, rests upon a
very insecure foundation. But the progress of error in many
cases does not stop here. The idea very naturally occurs to men,
that if Christ died for all the human race, then some provision
must have been made for bringing within all men's reach, and
making accessible to them, the privileges or opportunities which
have been thus procured for them. And as a large portion of
the human race are undoubtedly left in entire ignorance of

368 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

Christ, and of all that He has done for them, some universalists
have been led, not very unnaturally, to maintain the position, —
that men may be, and that many have been, saved through Christ,
or on the ground of His atonement, who never heard of Him, to
whom the gospel was never made known, though Scripture surely
teaches — at least in regard to adults — that their salvation is
dependent upon their actually attaining to a knowledge of what
Christ has done for men, and upon their being enabled to make a
right use and application of the knowledge with which they are
furnished. It is very easy and natural, however, to advance a
step further, and to conclude that, since Christ died for all men.
He must have intended to remove, and have actually removed,
not only some, but all, obstacles to their salvation ; so that all at
least to whom He is made known, must have it wholly in their
own power to secure their salvation. And this naturally leads to
a denial, .or at least a dilution, of the doctrine of man's total de-
pravity, and of the necessity of the special supernatural agency
of the Spirit, in order to the production of faith and regenera-
tion ; or — what is virtually the same thing — to the maintenance
of the doctrine of what is called universal sufficient grace, — that
is, that all men have sufficient power or ability bestowed upon
them to repent and believe, if they will only use it aright.

Calvinistic universalists can, of course, go no further than
universal grace in the sense of God's universal love to men, and
design to save them, and universal redemption, or Christ dying
for all men. The Arminians follow out these views somewhat
more fully and consistently, by taking in also universal vocation,
or a universal call to men, — addressed to them either through the
word, or through the works of creation and providence, — to trust
in Christ, or at least in God's offered mercy, accompanied, in
every instance, with grace sufficient to enable them to accept of
this call. In like manner, it is nothing more than a consistent
and natural following out of the universal grace and universal
redemption, to deny the doctrine of election, and thus to overturn
the sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners ; and it is
not to be wondered at, that some have gone further still, and
asserted the doctrine of universal salvation, — the only doctrine
that really removes any of the difficulties of this mysterious sub-
ject, though of course it does so at the expense of overturn-
ing the whole authority of revelation. Men have stopped at

sec.xti.] the atonement, and calvinistic principles. 369

all these various stages, and none are to be charged with holding
anything which they disclaim ; but experience, and the nature of
the case, make it plain enough, that the maintenance of uni-
versal grace and universal atonement has a tendency to lead men
in the direction we have indicated ; and this consideration should
impress upon us the necessity of taking care lest we should in-
cautiously admit views which may indeed seem plausible and
■ innocent, but which may eventually involve us in dangerous
error.

I must now terminate the discussion of this whole subject,
and proceed to consider the other leading doctrines involved in
the controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians. I
have dwelt longer upon this doctrine of the atonement than upon
any other. The subject is of fundamental importance, both
theoretically and practically ; both in its bearing upon a right
comprehension of the scheme of Christian truth, and upon the
discharge of the duties incumbent upon us, viewed either simply
as men who have souls to be saved, or as bound to seek the salva-
tion of others. And there is much in the present condition of
the church, and in the existing aspects of our theological lite-
rature, to enhance the importance of thoroughly understanding
this great doctrine, — having clear and definite conceptions of the
principal points involved in it, — and being familiar with the
scriptural evidence on which our convictions regarding it rest.
The atonement forms the very centre and keystone of the Chris-
tian system. It is most intimately connected, on the one side (or
a priori), with all that is revealed to us concerning the natural
state and condition of men, and concerning the nature and cha-
racter of Him who came in God's name to seek and to save them ;
and, on the other hand (or a posteriori), with the whole provision
made for imparting to men individually the forgiveness of their
sins, — the acceptance of their persons, — the renovation of their
natures, — and, finally, an inheritance among them that are sanc-
tified ; and it is well fitted to guard against defective and erro-
neous views upon the subject of the atonement, that we should
view it in its relation to the whole counsel of God, and to the
whole scheme of revealed truth. The atonement is the great
manifestation of God, — the grand means of accomplishing His
purposes. The exposition of the true nature, causes, and con-
sequences of the sufferings and death of the Son of God, — the

3 — VOL. II. 2 A

370 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV.

unfolding of the true character, the objects, and effects of His
once offering up of Himself a sacrifice, — constitutes what is more
strictly and peculiarly the gospel of the grace of God, which,
according to the commandment of the everlasting God, is to be
proclaimed to all nations for the obedience of faith. The only
legitimate herald of the cross is the man who has been taught
by God's word and Spirit to understand the true nature and
application of this great provision, — who, in consequence, has
been led to take his stand, for his own salvation, upon the foun-
dation which has been laid in Zion, — and who is able also to
go round about Zion, to mark her bulwarks, and to consider her
palaces, — to unfold the true nature and operation of the great
provision which God has made for saving sinners, by sending
His own Son to suffer and die for them. And with special re-
ference to the peculiar errors of the present time, there are two
dangers to be jealously guarded against : first, the danger of
attempting to make the cross of Christ more attractive to men, —
to make the representations of the scheme of redemption better
fitted, as we may fancy, to encourage and persuade men to come
to Christ, and to trust in Him, by keeping back, or explaining
away, anything which God has revealed to us regarding it, —
by failing to bring out, in its due order and right relations,
every part of the scheme of revealed truth ; and, secondly, the
danger of underrating the value and the eflScacy of the shedding
of Christ's precious blood, of the decease which He once accom-
plished at Jerusalem, as if it were fitted and intended merely
to remove legal obstacles, and to open a door for salvation to all,
and not to effect and secure the actual salvation of an innumer-
able multitude, — as if it did not contain a certain provision — an
effectual security — that Christ should see of the travail of His
soul and be satisfied ; that He should appear at length before
His Father's throne, with the whole company of the ransomed, —
with all whom He washed from their sins in His own blood, and
made kings and priests unto God, saying, " Behold, I and the
children whom Thou hast given Me ! "

CHAPTER XXV.

THE ARMINIAN CONTEOVERSY.

Sec. 1. — Arminius and the Arminians,

We have had occasion to show that the fundamental principles
of Calvinism, with respect to the purposes or decrees, and the
providence or proceedings, of God, were believed and maintained
by Luther and Zwingle, as well as by Calvin. The opposite view
of Zwingle's opinion — though given both by Mosheim and Milner
— is quite destitute of foundation ; and its inaccuracy has been
demonstrated by Scott, in his excellent continuation of Milner.
Luther and Melancthon had repeatedly asserted God's fore-ordain-
ing whatever comes to pass, and His executing His decrees in
providence, in stronger terms than ever Calvin used. There is
no evidence that Luther changed his opinion upon this subject.
There is evidence that Melancthon's underwent a considerable
modification, though to what extent it is not easy to determine,
as in his later works he seems to have written upon these subjects
with something very like studied ambiguity ; while in his letters
to Calvin he continued to make a sort of profession of agreeing
with him. The Reformers were substantially of one mind, not
only in regard to what are sometimes spoken of in a somewhat
vague and general way as the fundamental principles of evan-
gelical doctrine, but also in regard to what are called the peculi-
arities of Calvinism ; though there were some differences in their
mode of stating and explaining them, arising from their different
mental temperaments and tendencies, and from the degrees in the
extent of their knowledge and the fulness of their comprehension
of the scheme of divine truth. The principal opponent of Cal-
vinistic doctrines, while Calvin lived, was Castellio, who had no
great weight as a theologian. The Lutheran churches, after the
death of Melancthon, generally abandoned Calvin's doctrine in

372

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

regard to the divine decrees, and seem to have been somewhatj

tempted to this course, by their singularly bitter animosity against

all who refused to receive their doctrine about the corporal pre

sence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Socinians rejected th«

whole system of theology which had been generally taught by the

Reformers; and Socinus published, in 1578, Castelho's Dialogues

on Predestination, Election, Free Will, etc., under the fictitious

name of Felix Turpio Urhevetanus* This work seems to have

had an influence in leading some of the ministers of the Reformec

churches to entertain laxer views upon some doctrinal questions."

The effects of this first appeared in the Reformed Church o{

the Netherlands. The Reformation had been introduced intc

that country, partly by Lutherans from Germany, and partly by

Calvinists from France. Calvinistic principles, however, prevailed

among them; and the Belgic Confession, which agrees with almost

all the confessions of the Reformed churches in teaching Cal-I

vinistic doctrines, had, along with the Palatine or Heidelberg

Catechism, been, from about the year 1570, invested with publicf

authority in that church. It was in this country that the first

important public movement against Calvinism took place in the

Reformed churches, and it may be dated from the appointment

of Arminius to the chair of theology at Leyden in 1603. An

attempt, indeed, had been made to introduce anti-Calvinistic

views into the Church of England a few years before this ; but

it was checked by the interference of the leading ecclesiastical

authorities, headed by Whitgift, who was at that time Archbishop

of Canterbury. And it was only as the result of the labours

of Arminius and his followers, and through the patronage of

the Church of England falling into the hands of men who had

adopted their views, that, at a later period, Arminianism was'

introduced into that church. Before his appointment to the

chair of theology, Arminius — whose original name was Van Har-

men — who had studied theology at Geneva under Beza, and had

been for some years pastor of a church in Amsterdam, seems to

have adopted, even then, most of the doctrinal views which have

since been generally associated with his name, though he was onlys

* Spanhemii Elenchus, p. 238. Ed.
1701.
t Basnage, Ilistoire de la Religion

des Eglises Re/ormees, P. iii. c.
tome ii. p. 262.

ir.

Sec. I.] ARMINIUS AND THE ARMINIANS. 373

suspected of heterodoxy, or of holdiiig \iews inconsistent with the
doctrine of the Reformed churches, and of the Belgic Confession,
and had not yet afforded any pullic or tangible proofs of his
deviation from sound doctrine. Although he seems, in general,
even after he was settled as Professor of Theology at Ley den, to
have proceeded in the promulgation of his opinions with a degree
of caution and reserve scarcely consistent with candour and in-
tegrity, yet it soon became evident and well known that he had
embraced, and was inculcating, opinions inconsistent with those
which were generally professed in the Reformed churches. This
led to much contention between him and his colleague, Gomarus,
who was a learned and zealous defender of Calvinism. The
Church of the United Provinces soon became involved in a con-
troversy upon this subject, which got entangled also with some
political movements. Arminius was with some difficulty pre-
vailed upon, in 1608, to make a public declaration of his senti-
ments on the points in regard to which he was suspected of error.
He died in 1609. After his death, Episcopius was considered
the head of the party ; and he ultimately deviated much further
from the path of sound doctrine than Arminius had done.

The followers of Arminius, in 1610, presented a remonstrance
to the civil authorities of the United Provinces, stating, under
five heads or articles, the opinions they had adopted, asking a
revision or correction of the symbolical books of the church, — the
Belgic Confession, and the Palatine or Heidelberg Catechism, —
and demanding full toleration for the profession of their views.
This fact procured for them the designation of the Remonstrants,
the name by which they are most commonly described in the
theological writings of the seventeenth century ; while their op-
ponents, from the answer they gave to this paper, are often called
Contrareraonstrants. A conference was held between the parties,
at the Hague, in 1611, — usually spoken of as the Collatio Hagien-
sis, — at which the leading points in dispute were fully discussed,
but without any approach being made towards an agreement.
The orthodox party were very anxious to procure a meeting of a
national synod, which might take up the subjects controverted,
and give a decision upon them. The Arminians laboured to
prevent this, and had influence enough with the civil authorities
to succeed in this object for several years. At length, in No-
vember 1618, a national synod was held at Dort, at which were

374 THE ARMINIAN CONTEOVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

present also representatives or delegates from almost all the Ee-
formed churches of Europe, including even the Church of Eng-
land. This synod sat for about six months, — unanimously con-
demned the doctrinal views of the Eemonstrants, — and adopted a
body of canons upon those points at issue which have been ever
since regarded as one of the most valuable and authoritative expo-
sitions of Calvinistic theology. By the sentence of the synod, the
Remonstrants were deposed from their ecclesiastical offices ; and
by the civil authorities they were suppressed and exiled. But in a
few years — in 1626 — they were allowed to return to their country,
were tolerated in the performance of public worship, and per-
mitted to establish a theological seminary at Amsterdam. This
seminary has been adorned by men of distinguished talents and
learning, especially Episcopius, Curcellseus, Limborch, Le Clerc,
and Wetstein, — whose labours and writings contributed, to no small
extent, to diffuse Arminianism among the Reformed churches.

These are the leading facts connected with the origin and'
progress of Arminianism, and the reception it met with in the
Reformed churches ; — facts of which, from their important bear-
ing upon the history of theology, it is desirable to possess a
competent knowledge.

As there was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of
Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Armi-
nius ; — facts, however, which do not in the least detract from the
merits of Calvin as a most powerful promoter of scriptural truth,
or from the demerits of Arminius as an influential disseminator
of anti-scriptural error. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced
back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus, and seem to
have been held by many of the fathers of the third and fourth
centuries, having been diffused in the church through the cor-
rupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his fol-
lowers, in the fifth century, were as decidedly opposed to Cal-
vinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from
sound doctrine than he did. The system of theology which has
generally prevailed in the Church of Rome was substantially very
much the same as that taught by Arminius, with this difference
in favour of the Church of Rome, that the Council of Trent at
least left the Romanists at liberty to profess, if they chose, a
larger amount of scriptural truth, upon some important points,
than the Arminian creed, even in its most evangelical form, ad-

Sec. I.] ARMINIUS AND THE ARMINIANS. 375

mits of, — a truth strikingly confirmed by the fact, that every
Arminian would have rejected the five propositions of Jansenius,
which formed the ground of the Jansenistic controversy, and
would have concurred in the condemnation which the Pope,
through the influence of the Jesuits, pronounced upon them.

The more evangelical Arminians, such as the Wesleyan
Methodists, are at great pains to show that the views of Arminius
liimself have been much misunderstood and misrepresented, —
that his reputation has been greatly injured by the much wider
deviations from sound doctrine which some of his followers intro-
duced, and which have been generally ranked under the head of
Arminianism. They allege that Arminius himself agreed with all
the leading doctrines of the Reformers, except what they are fond
of calling the peculiarities of Calvinism. There is undoubtedly
a good deal of truth in this statement, as a matter of fact. The
opinions of Arminius himself seem to have been almost precisely
the same as those held by Mr. Wesley, and still generally professed
by his followers, except that Arminius does not seem to have ever
seen his way to so explicit a denial of the doctrine of persever-
ance, or to so explicit a maintenance of the possibility of attaining
perfection in this life, as Wesley did ; and it is true, that much of
what is often classed under the general name of Arminianism con-
tains a much larger amount of error, and a much smaller amount
of truth, than the writings of Arminius and Wesley exhibit.
Arminius himself, as compared with his successors, seems to have
held, in the main, scriptural views of the depravity of human
nature, — and the necessity, because of mens depravity^ of a super-
natural Avork of grace to effect their renovation and sanctification,
— and this is the chief point in which Arminianism, in its more
evangelical form, differs from the more Pelagian representations
of Clu'istian doctrine which are often classed under the same de-
signation. The difference is certainly not unimportant, and it
ought to be admitted and recognised wherever it exists. But the
history of this subject seems to show that, whenever men abandon
the principles of Calvinism, there is a powerful tendency leading
them downwards into the depths of Pelagianism. Arminius him-
self does not seem — so far as his views were ever fully developed
— to have gone further in deviating from scriptural truth than to
deny the Calvinistic doctrines of election, particular redemption,
efficacious and irresistible grace in conversion, and to doubt, if

376 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXI

not to deny, the perseverance of the saints. But his followers,^
and particularly Episcopius and Curcellgeus, very soon introduced
further corruptions of scriptural truth, especially in regard to
original sin, the work of the Spirit, and justification; and made
near approaches, upon these and kindred topics, to Pelagian or
Socinian views. And a large proportion of those theologians
who have been willing to call themselves Arminians, have mani-
fested a similar leaning, — have exhibited a similar result.

It is quite common, among the writers of the seventeenth cen-
tury, to distinguish between the original Remonstrants — such as
Arminius and those who adhered to his views, and who differed
from the doctrines of the Reformed churches only in the five
articles or the five points, as they are commonly called — and
those who deviated much further from scriptural truth. The
latter class they were accustomed to call Pelagianizing or Soci-
nianizing Remonstrants ; and the followers of Arminius very soon
promulgated views that fully warranted these appellations, — views
which tended to exclude or explain away almost everything that
was peculiar and fundamental in the Christian scheme ; and to
reduce Christianity to a mere system of natural religion, with
only a fuller revelation of the divine will as to the duties and
destinies of man. The followers of Arminius very soon began
to corrupt or deny the doctrines of original sin, — of the grace
of the Spirit in regeneration and conversion, — of justification
through Christ's righteousness and merits. They corrupted, as
we have seen, the doctrine of the atonement, — that is, the sub-
stitution and satisfaction of Christ ; and some of them went so
far towards Socinianism, as at least to talk very lightly of the im-
portance, and very doubtfully of the validity of the evidence, of
the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Something of this sort,
though varying considerably in degree, has been exhibited by
most writers who have passed under the designation of Armi-
nians, except the Wesleyan Methodists ; and it will be a new and
unexampled thing in the history of the church, if that important
and influential body should continue long at the position they
have hitherto occupied in the scale of orthodoxy, — that is, with-
out exhibiting a tendency to imbibe either more truth or more
error, — to lean more to the side either of Calvinism or Pelagian-
ism. Pelagian Arminianism is more consistent with itself than
Arminianism in its more evangelical forms ; and there is a strong

Sec. I.] ARMINIUS AND THE ARMINIANS. 377

tendency in systems of doctrine to develope their true nature and
bearings fully and consistently. Socinianism, indeed, is more
consistent than either of them.

The Pelagians of the fifth century did not deny formally the
divinity and the atonement of our Saviour, but they omitted them,
— left them out in their scheme of theology to all practical intents
and purposes, — and virtually represented men as quite able to
save themselves. The Socinians gave consistency to the scheme,
by formally denying what the Pelagians had practically set aside
or left out. Many of those who, in modern times, have passed
under the name of Arminians, have followed the Pelagians in this
important particular, and while distinguished from the Socinians
by holding in words — or rather, by not denying — the doctrines of
the divinity and atonement of Christ, have practically represented
Christianity, in its general bearing and tendency, very much
as if these doctrines formed no part of revelation ; and all who
are Arminians in any sense — all who reject Calvinism — may be
proved to come short in giving to the person and the work of
Christ that place and influence which the Scriptures assign to
them. The Papists have always held the doctrines of the divinity
and atonement of Christ; and though they have contrived to neu-
tralize and pervert their legitimate influence by a somewhat more
roundabout process, they have not, in general, so entirely omitted
them, or left them out, as the Pelagians and many Arminians
have done. This process of omission or failing to carry out these
doctrines in their full bearings and applications upon the way of
salvation, and the scheme of revealed truth, has of course been
exhibited by different writers and sections of the church, passing
under the general designation of Arminian, in very different
degrees. But, notwithstanding all this diversity, it is not very
difficult to point out what may fairly enough be described as the
fundamental characteristic principle of Arminianism, — that which
Arminianism either is, or has a strong and constant tendency to
become ; and this is, — that it is a scheme for dividing or parti-
tioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners them-
selves, instead of ascribing it wholly, as the Bible does, to the
sovereign grace of God, — the perfect and all-sufficient work of
Christ, — and the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Spirit.
Stapfer, in his Theologia Polemica, states the irpwrov yfrevSa, or
originating false principle of the Arminians, in this way: " Quod

378 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

homini tribuunt vires naturales obediendi Evangelio, ut si non
cum Pelagianis saltern cum semi-Pelagianis faciant. Hoc est,
si non integr^ vires statuunt, quales in statu integritatis fue-
runt, tamen contendunt, illas licet segras, ad gratiam oblatam
tamen recipiendam sufficientes esse."* The encroachment they
make upon the grace of God in the salvation of sinners varies,
of course, according to the extent to which they carry out their
views, especially in regard to men's natural depravity, and the
nature and necessity of the work of the Spirit in regeneration
and conversion ; but Arminianism, in any form, can be shown to
involve the ascription to men themselves, — more directly or more
remotely, — of a place and influence in effecting their own salva-
tion, which the Bible denies to them and ascribes to God.

While this can be shown to be involved in, or fairly deducible
from, Arminianism in every form, it makes a very material differ-
ence in the state of the case, and it should materially affect our
judgment of the parties, according as this fundamental charac
teristic principle is brought out and developed with more or less
fulness. This distinction has always been recognised and acted
upon by the most able and zealous opponents of Arminianism. It
may be proper to give a specimen of this. Ames, or Amesius, —
whose writings upon the Popish controversy, in reply to Bellar-
mine, cannot be spoken of except in the very highest terms of
commendation, — has also written several very able works against
the Arminians. He was present at the Synod of Dort, though not
a member of it, — was much consulted in drawing up its canons, —
thoroughly versant in the whole theology of the subject, — and a
most zealous and uncompromising advocate of Calvinism. In his
work, De Conscientia, under the head De Hseresi, he put this
question. An Kemonstrantes sint hseretici ? And the answer he
gives is this: " Remonstrantium sententia, prout k vulgo ipsis
faventium recipitur, non est proprie hasresis, sed periculosus error
in fide, ad hseresin tendens. Prout vero a quibusdam eorum de-
fenditur, est hasresis Pelagiana : quia gratia^ internse operationem
efficacem necessarian! esse negant ad conversionem, et fidem inge-
nerandam." f Ames, then, thought that Arminianism, in its more
mitigated form, was not to be reckoned a heresy, but only a dan-
gerous error in doctrine, tending to heresy ; and that it should be

* C. xvii. 8. xii. torn. iv. p. 528. f Lib. iv. c. iv. Q. 4.

Sec. II.] SYNOD OF DORT. 379

stigmatized as a heresy, only when it was carried out so far as to
deny the necessity of an internal work of supernatural grace to
conversion and the production of faith. And the general idea
thus indicated and maintained should certainly be applied, if we
would form anything like a fair and candid estimate of the dif-
ferent types of doctrine, more or less Pelagian, which have passed
under the general name of Arminianism.

Sec. 2. — Synod of Dort.

The Synod of Dort marks one of the most important eras in
the history of Christian theology ; and it is important to possess
some acquaintance with the theological discussions wliicli gave
occasion to it, — with the decisions it pronounced upon them, — and
the discussions to which its decisions gave rise. No synod or
council was ever held in the church, whose decisions, all things
considered, are entitled to more deference and respect. The great
doctrines of the word of God had been fully brought out, in the
preceding century, by the labours of the Reformers ; and, under
the guidance of the Spirit which accompanied them, they had
been unanswerably defended against the Romanists, and had been
cordially embraced by almost all the churches which had thrown
off antichristian bondage. In the beginning of the seventeenth
century, some men appeared in different churches, who, confident
in their own powers, and not much disposed to submit implicitly
to the plain teaching of the word of God, were greatly disposed
to speculate upon divine things. They subjected the system of
doctrines, which had been generally received by the Reformers,
to a pretty searching scrutiny, and imagined that they had dis-
covered some important errors, the removal of which tended, as
they thought, to make the scheme of scriptural doctrine more
rational, and better fitted to command the assent of intelligent
men, and to promote the interests of practical religion. They
were men abundantly fitted, by their talents and acquirements, to
give to these views, and to the grounds on which they rested, every
fair advantage. After these alleged improvements upon the
theology of the Reformation had been for some time published,
and had been subjected to a pretty full discussion, the Synod of
Dort assembled to examine them, and give an opinion upon them.
It consisted not only of the representatives of the churches of one

380 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

country (the United Provinces), but of delegates from almost all
the Protestant churches, except the Lutheran. The Protestant
Church of France, indeed, was not represented in it ; because the
delegates appointed by that church to attend the synod (Peter du
Moulin and Andrew Rivet, two of the most eminent divines of
the age), were prohibited by the King from executing the com-
mission the church had given them. But the next national Synod
of the Reformed Church of France adopted the canons of the
Synod of Dort, and required assent to them from all their mini-
sters. The delegates from the Church of England had not indeed
a commission from the church, properly so called, and therefore
did not formally represent it ; but they were appointed by the
civil and the ecclesiastical heads of the church, — the King, and
the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and there is no reason to doubt
that they fairly represented, in fact, the doctrinal sentiments that
then generally prevailed among their brethren. While the mem-
bers of the Synod of Dort thus represented, either formally or
practically, the great body of the Protestant churches, they were
themselves personally the most able and learned divines of the
age, many of them having secured for themselves, by their writ-
ings, a permanent place in theological literature. This synod,
after full and deliberate examination, unanimously determined
against the innovations of Arminius and his followers, and gave a
decided testimony in favour of the great principles of Calvinism,
as accordant with the word of God and the doctrines of the Re-
formation. These subjects continued to be discussed during the
remainder of the century, very much upon the footing of the
canons of the Synod of Dort, and with a reference to the decisions
they had given. And in order to anything like an intelligent
acquaintance with our own Confession of Faith, it is necessary to
know something of the state of theological discussion during the
period that intervened between the Synod of Dort and the West-
minster Assembly, by which the statements and phraseology of
our Confession were very materially influenced.

The influential and weighty testimony thus borne in favour of
Calvinism, has of course called down upon the Synod of Dort
the hostility of all who have rejected Calvinistic principles. And
much has been written, for the purpose of showing that its deci-
sion is not entitled to much weight or deference ; and that gene-
rally for the purpose of exciting a prejudice against it. The chief

Sec. II.] SYNOD OF DORT. 381

pretences employed for this purpose are these : First, It is alleged
that the assembling of the synod was connected with some political
movements, and that it was held under political influence, — a
statement which, though true in some respects, and as affecting
some of the parties connected with bringing about the calling of
the synod, does not in the least affect the integrity and sincerity
of the divines who composed it, or the authority of their decisions ;
for no one alleges that they decided from any other motive but
their own conscientious convictions as to the meaning of the word
of God. Secondly, The opponents of the synod dwell much upon
some differences of opinion, on minor points, that obtained among
members of the synod, and upon the exhibitions of the common
infirmities of humanity, to which some of the discussions, on
disputed topics, occasionally gave rise, — a charge too insignificant
to be deserving of notice, when viewed in connection with the
purpose to which it is here applied. And, thirdly. They enlarge
upon the hardship and suffering to which the Remonstrants were
subjected by the civil authorities, in following out the eccle-
siastical decisions of the synod, employing these very much as
they employ Calvin's connection with the death of Servetus, as
if this at all affected the truth of the doctrines taught, or as if
there was any fairness in judging, by the notions generally pre-
valent in modern times, of the character and conduct of men who
lived before the principles of toleration were generally understood
or acted upon.

It is quite true that the divines who composed the Synod of
Dort generally held that the civil magistrate was entitled to in-
flict pains and penalties as a punishment for heresy, and that the
Arminians of that age — though abundantly subservient to the
civil magistrate when he was disposed to favour them, and indeed
openly teaching a system of gross Erastianism — advocated the pro-
priety of both the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities practising
a large measure of toleration and forbearance in regard to differ-
ences of opinion upon religious subjects. The error of those who
advocated and practised what would now be reckoned persecution,
was the general error of the age, and should not, in fairness, be
regarded as fitted to give an unfavourable impression of their
character and motives, and still less to prejudice us against the
soundness of their doctrines upon other and more important topics ;
while the views of the Arminians about toleration and forbear-

382 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

ance — at least as to be practised by the ecclesiastical authorities,
in abstaining from exercising ecclesiastical discipline against error
— went to the opposite extreme of latitudinarian indifference to
truth ; and, in so far as they were sound and just as respected
the civil authorities, are to be traced chiefly to the circumstances
of their own situation, which naturally led them to inculcate
such views when the civil authorities were opposed to them, and
afford no presumption in favour of the superior excellence of
their character, or the general soundness of their opinions.

The Eomanists, too, have attacked the Synod of Dort, and
have not only laboured to excite a prejudice against it, but have
endeavoured to draw from it some presumptions in favour of their
own principles and practices. Bossuet has devoted to this object
a considerable part of the fourteenth book of his History of the
Variations of the Protestant Churches. The chief points on which
he dwells, so far as the history and proceedings of the synod are
concerned, — for I reserve for the present the consideration of its
theology, — are these : that it indicated some diversities of opinion
among Protestants, on which no deliverance was given ; that it
was a testimony to the necessity of councils, and of the exercise
of ecclesiastical authority in deciding doctrinal controversies ; that
the answers of the synod to the objections of the Remonstrants
against the way in which the synod proceeded, and in which it
treated the accused, are equally available for defending the
Council of Trent against the common Protestant objections to
its proceedings; and that the results of the synod show the use-
lessness and inefEcacy of councils, when conducted and estimated
upon Protestant principles. Upon all these points Bossuet has
exhibited his usual unfairness, misrepresentation, and sophistry,
as has been most conclusively proved by Basnage, in his History
of the Religion of the Reformed Churches*

It can be easily proved that there was nothing inconsistent
with the principles which Protestants maintain against Romanists,
on the subject of councils and synods, in anything that was done
by the Synod of Dort, or in any inferences fairly deducible from
its proceedings ; that there was no analogy whatever between
the claims and assumptions of the Council of Trent and those
of the Synod of Dort, and the relation in which the Protestants

* Basnage, P. iii. c. v.

Sec. II.] SYNOD OF DORT. 383

in general stood to the one, and the Remonstrants stood to the
other; that, in everything which is fitted to command respect
and deference, the Synod of Dort contrasts most favourably with
the Council of Trent ; and that the whole history of the pro-
ceedings of the Church of Rome, in regard to substantially the
same subjects of controversy^ when agitated among themselves
during the whole of the seventeenth century, manifests, first, that
her claim to the privilege of having a living infallible judge of
controversies is practically useless ; and, secondly, that the prac-
tical use which she has generally made of this claim has been
characterized by the most shameless, systematic, and deliberate
dishonesty. It is the doctrine of Protestants in general, as laid
down in our Confession of Faith, that "it belongeth to synods
and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith and
cases of conscience, and that their decrees and determinations, if
consonant to the word of God, are to be received vvith reverence
and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but
also for the power whereby they are made as being an ordinance
of God, appointed thereunto in His word." This is their duty
and function ; and all this may be claimed and exercised without
the possession or the assumption of infallibility.

The Synod of Dort, as a national Synod of the United Pro-
vinces, were the legitimate ecclesiastical superiors of the Remon-
strants, entitled to try them, to examine into the innovations
in doctrine which they had been introducing into the church, to
condemn their errors, and, on the ground of these errors, to sub-
ject them to ecclesiastical censure, — a position which the Remon-
strants usually either deny or evade, but which is undoubtedly
true, and which, being true, affords a conclusive answer to the
charges of injustice and tyranny which they usually bring against
the Synod's proceedings in regard to them ; whereas the Council
of Trent had no rightful jurisdiction, in any sense, or to any ex-
tent, over Protestants in general. It is interesting, and upon a
variety of grounds, — and not merely as affording materials for a
retort upon Romanists in answer to their attempts to excite preju-
dices against the Synod of Dort, — to remember that controversies,
upon substantially the same topics, divided the Church of Rome,
from the time of the dispute excited by Baius, soon after the dis-
solution of the Council of Trent, down till the publication of the
bull Unigenitus, in 1713 ; that the Popes were repeatedly urged

384 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

to pronounce a decision upon these controversies, and repeatedly
took them into consideration, professedly with an intention of
deciding them; that the whole history of their proceedings in
regard to them, for 150 years, affords good ground to believe
that they never seriously and honestly considered the question as
to what was the truth of God upon the subject, and what their
duty to Him required them to do, but were supremely influenced,
in all that they did, or proposed, or declined to do in the matter,
by a regard to the secular interests of the Papacy ; and that, in
the prosecution of this last object, all regard to soundness of doc-
trine, and all respect to the dictates of integrity and veracity,
were systematically laid aside.* I shall not dwell longer upon the
historical circumstances connected with the rise of Arminianism
and the Synod of Dort, but must proceed to advert to some of
the leading points connected with its theology.

Sec. 3. — The Five Points.

The subjects discussed in the Synod of Dort, and decided
upon by that assembly, in opposition to the Arminians, have been
usually known in theological literature as the Jive points ; and the
controversy concerning them has been sometimes called the quiii-
quarticular controversy, or the controversy on the five articles.
In the remonstrance which the followers of Arminius presented
to the civil authorities in 1610, they stated their own doctrines
under five heads ; and this circumstance determined, to a large
extent, the form in which the whole subject was afterwards dis-
cussed,— fii'st at the conference at the Hague, in 1611, and after-
wards at the Synod of Dort, in 1618. Of these five articles, as
. they were originally stated, the first was upon piredestination, or
election ; the second, on the death of Christ, and the nature and
extent of His redemption ; the third, on the cause of faith, — that
is, of course, the power or agency by which faith is produced ;
the fourth, the mode of conversion, or the kind of agency by
which it is effected, and the mode of its operation ; and the fifth,
on perseverance.

On this last topic — namely, perseverance — neither Arminius
himself nor his followers, for some little time after his death,
gave a decided deliverance. They did not seem quite prepared

* See Hottinger aud Weisman.

Sec. III.] THE FIVE POINTS. 385

to give an explicit and positive denial to the doctrine which had
been generally taught in the Reformed churches, of the certain
perseverance of all believers. Accordingly, in the conference at
the Hague, they professed, as Arminius had done in his public
declaration the year before his death, that their mind was not
fully made up upon this point, and that they must make a fuller
investigation into the import of the scriptural statements regard-
ing it, before they could make any confident assertion, either
affirmatively or negatively.* It is very manifest, however, that
their general scheme of theology imperatively required them, in
consistency, to deny the doctrine of the certain perseverance of
believers, and to maintain that they may totally and finally fall
away ; and indeed it is rather wonderful that they should have
doubted upon this point when they had rejected every other
doctrine of Calvinism ; for there is certainly no article in the
Arminian creed which has more appearance of countenance from
scriptural statements than that of the possibility of the apostasy
or falling away of believers. Accordingly they did not continue
long in this state of doubt or indecision ; and before the Synod of
Dort assembled, they were fully prepared to assert and maintain
an explicit denial of the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance.

We have already considered the second article, under the
head of the Atonement.

The third and fourth articles are evidently, from their nature,
very closely connected with each other ; and indeed are virtually
identical. Accordingly, in the subsequent progress of the contro-
versy, they were commonly amalgamated into one ; and in the
canons of the synod itself, they are treated of together, under
one head, though designated the third and fourth articles. As
originally stated in the remonstrance, and as discussed in the
conference at the Hague, they referred chiefly, the one to the
way and manner in which faith was produced, and the other to
the way and manner in which conversion was effected. But
these two words really describe what is substantially one and the
same process and result. Faith and conversion both describe, in
substance — though in different relations and aspects — the one
great process by which men, individually, are united to Christ, —
are turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan

* Amesii Coronis, p. 285.
3 — VOL. II. 2 B

386 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

unto God, — by which they are put in actual possession of the
blessings which Christ purchased. Conversion is descriptive
more immediately of the process or change itself ; and faith, in
the sense in which it is here used, of the means by which it is
effected. Every one admits that faith and conversion are cer-
tainly and invariably connected with each other ; and all, except
the lowest Socinians, admit that, while they are acts of man, —
that is, while it is man himself who believes and turns to God, —
these acts are also, in some sense, produced by the grace or
gracious operation of God. Now the dispute upon this point —
and indeed upon all the points involved in the Arminian con-
troversy— turns upon the question as to the way and manner in
which God and man are concerned in the production of man's
actions ; so that the question as to the cause of faith and the
mode of conversion is virtually one and the same, they being two
parts, or rather aspects, of one and the same process, which must
be regulated and determined by the same principles. In the
Acta et Scripta Synodalia Remonstrantium — an important work,
in which they explained and defended at length the statement of
their opinions which they had given in to the synod — they also
join together the third and fourth articles ; and the general title
which they give to the two thus combined is, " De gratia Dei in
conversione hominis," — the general subject thus indicated being,
of course, the nature, qualities, and regulating principles of this
gracious operation, by which God effects, or co-operates in effect-
ing, the conversion of a sinner.

Sec. 4. — Original Sin.

There is a difference between the title given by tne Arminians
to their discussion of the third and fourth articles conjointly, and
that given by the Synod of Dort to the same two articles, treated
also by them as one ; and the difference is worth adverting to, as
it suggests a topic of some importance in a general survey of the Ij
Arminian theology. The title given to these two articles, in the
canons of the Synod, is this : " On the corruption or depravity
of man, — his conversion to God, and the mode or manner of his
conversion."* Here we have prominence given to the corruption

* Acta Synodi Nationalis, p. 263. Ed. 1620.

Sec. IV.] ORIGINAL SIN. 387

or depravity of man, as a part of this subject, and as in some way
the ground or basis of the doctrine which treats of it. If a man
possessed some knowledge of what has usually passed under the
name of Arminianism in this country, — except as exhibited by
the Wesleyans, — but did not know anything of the form in which
it appeared and was discussed at the time of the Synod of Dort,
he might probably be surprised to find that original sin, or human
depravity, did not form the subject of one of the five points. It
is a common, and not an inaccurate impression, that a leading
and an essential feature of the Arminian scheme of theology, is a
denial of man's total depravity, and an assertion of his natural
power or ability to do something, more or less, that is spiritually
good, and that will contribute to effect his deliverance from the
guilt and power of sin, and his eternal welfare. Every consistent
Arminian must hold views of this sort, though these views may be
more or less completely developed, and more or less fully carried
out. The original Arminians held them, though they rather
shrunk from developing them, or bringing them into prominence,
and rather strove to keep them in the background. Accordingly
they did not introduce, into the original statement and exposition
of their peculiar opinions, anything directly and formally bearing
upon the subject of original sin or human depravity, and only
insinuated their erroneous views upon this important topic in
connection with their exposition of the manner in which conver-
sion is effected, and the part which God and man respectively
act in that matter.

It holds true universally, that the view we take of the natural
condition and character of men, in relation to God and to His
law, must materially affect our opinions as to the whole scheme of
revealed truth. This is evident from the nature of the case, and
it has been abundantly confirmed by experience. The direct and
primary object of God's revelation may be said to be, — to make
known to us the way in which men may attain to eternal happi-
ness. But the way in which this result is to be attained, must
depend upon, and be regulated by, the actual state and condition
of men, — the nature and strength of the obstacles, if there be any,
which stand in the way of accomplishing this object, — and the
power or ability of men to do anything towards removing these
obstacles, and thereby effecting the results. The way of salva-
tion, accordingly, revealed in Scripture, assumes, and is based

388 THE ARMTNIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

upon, men's actual state and capacities. The one is, throughout,
adapted or adjusted to the other in the actual divine arrangements,
and of course in the revelation given to us concerning the whole
state of the case. If men can attain to eternal happiness only in
a certain waj, and through certain arrangements, their actual state
and character must have rendered these arrangements necessary ;
and these two things being thus necessarily connected, the one
must at once determine and indicate the other. Accordingly we
find, in the history of the church, that the views which men have
entertained of the natural state and condition of the human race,
have always accorded with the opinions they have formed with
regard to the scheme of divine truth in general.

Socinians, believing that man labours under no depraved ten-
dency, but is now in the same condition, and possessed of the same
powers, in a moral point of view, as when he was first created,
naturall}' and consistently discard from their scheme of theology a
divine Saviour and a vicarious atonement. Calvinists, believing
that man is by nature wholly guilty and entirely depraved, recog-
nise the necessity of a full -satisfaction, a perfect righteousness,
and an almighty and irresistible agency. Arminians occupy a
sort of intermediate place between them, — admitting the divinity
and atonement of Christ, and the necessity of the agency of the
Spirit, — but not assigning to the work either of the Son or of
the Spirit, in the salvation of sinners, that supreme place — that
efficacious and determining influence — which Calvinists ascribe
to them. And, in accordance with these yiews, they have been
in the habit of corrupting the doctrine of original sin, or of main-
taining defective and erroneous opinions in regard to the guilt and
sinfulness of the estate into which man fell. They have usually
denied the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity ; and
while admitting that man's moral powers and capacities have been
injured or deteriorated by the fall, they have commonly denied
that entire depravity, that inability — without u previous change
effected upon them by God's almighty grace — to will or do any-
thing spiritually good, which Calvinists have generally asserted ;
or, if they have admitted the entire depravity of men by nature,
— as Arminius and Wesley did, or at least intended to do, — the
effect of this admission has been only to introduce confusion and
inconsistency into the other departments of their creed. While
erroneous and defective views of the natural guilt and depravity

Sec. IV.] ORIGINAL SIN. 389

of man have generally had much influence in leading men to
adopt the whole Arminian system of theology, their views upon
this subject have not always come out earliest or most promi-
nently, because they can talk largely and fully upon men's de-
pravity, without palpably contradicting themselves ; while by
other parts of their system — such as their doctrine about the
work of the Spirit, and the way and manner in which conversion
is effected — they may be practically undermining all scriptural
conceptions upon the subject.

This was very much what was exhibited in the development of
the views of Arminius and his followers. The statements of Ar-
minius himself in regard to the natural depravity of man, so far
as we have them upon record, are full and satisfactory. And the
third -and fourth articles, as to the grace of God in conversion,
even as taught by his followers at the time of the Synod of Dort,
contain a large amount of scriptural truth. It is worthy of notice,
however, that on the occasion when Arminius, in the year before
his death, made a public declaration of his statements in the pre-
sence of the civil authorities of Holland, his colleague, Gomarus,
charged him with holding some erroneous opinions upon the sub-
ject of original sin, — a fact from which, viewed in connection
with the subsequent history of this matter, and the course usually
taken by Arminians upon this subject, we are warranted in sus-
pecting that he had given some indications, though probably not
very distinct, of softening down the doctrines generally professed
by the Reformers upon this point.* In the third article, the Re-
monstrants professed to ascribe the production of faith, and the
existence of everything spiritually good in man, to the operation
of divine grace, and to assert the necessity of the entire renovation
of his nature by the Holy Spirit. And in the fourth article they
extended this principle of the necessity of divine grace, or of the
agency of the Spirit, to the whole work of sanctification, — to the
whole of the process by which men, after being enabled to believe,
are cleansed from all sin, and made meet for heaven. These
statements, of course, did not form any subject of dispute between
them and their opponents. The Calvinists held all this, and had
always done so. They only doubted whether the Arminians really
held these doctrines honestly, in the natural meaning of the words,

* Scott on Synod of Dort ; Historical portion.

390 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

or at least whether they could intelligently hold them consistently
in union with other doctrines which they maintained. Ames, after
quoting the third article, as stated by the Remonstrants in the
conference at the Hague, — and they retained it in the same terms
at the Synod of Dort, — says : "De assertionis hujus veritate, nulla
in Collatione movebatur controversia, neque nunc in quaestionem
vocatur : imo ad magnam harum litium partem sedandam, hsec
una sufficeret thesis, modo sinceram eam Remonstrantium confes-
sionem continere constaret, et ex labiis dolosis non prodire. Sed
magna subest suspicio, eos non tam ex animo, quam ex arte dixisse
multa, quae continentur in istoc effato. Diruunt enim alibi, quae
hie sedificant : ut ex paucis his inter sese collatis, mihi saltem videtur
manifestum."* He then proceeds to quote statements made on
other occasions by the Arminians who took part in this conference,
that are inconsistent with this article, and that plainly enough
ascribe to men some power to do what is spiritually good of them-
selves, and in the exercise of their own natural capacities.

I have quoted this passage, because it contains an accurate
description of the course commonly pursued in all ages by Armi-
nians in discussing this subject, and most fully by the Arminians
of the Church of England. They are obliged, by the necessity
of keeping up an appearance of consistency with their Articles
and Homilies, to make large general admissions in regard to the
depravity of men, and their inability of themselves to do any-
thing spiritually good ; and as these admissions are inconsistent
with the general spirit and the fundamental principles of their
scheme of theology, they are under the necessity of contradicting
themselves, and of withdrawing with the one hand what they had
given with the other.

The confusion and inconsistency often displayed by Episco-
palian Arminians on these topics, when treating of original sin,
regeneration, and the work of the Spirit, is very deplorable, and
sometimes appears in a form that is really ludicrous. Bishop Tom-
line quoted, with disapprobation, as Calvinism, a statement on the
subject, which was taken from the Homilies.f Dr. Sumner, Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, in his Apostolical Preaching Considered, —
whieh, though a poor book, is yet decidedly superior, both in

* Amesii Coronis, Art. iii. p. 170. I Rc/ulation of Calvinism, vol. i. pp.
t Vide Scott's Remarks on Tomline s 105-6.

Sec. IV.] ORIGINAL SIN. 391

point of ability and orthodoxy, to Tomline's Refutation of Cal-
vinism,— warned, apparently, by the exposure of Tomline's blun-
ders, adopts a different mode of dealing with the strong statements
of the Homilies on this subject. He quotes two passages from the
Homilies ; one from the Homily on the Nativity, and the other
from that on Whitsunday, Part I., — the second of these being the
one denounced by Tomline, — and charges them with exaggeration
as containing " strong and unqualified language, which is neither
copied from Scripture nor sanctioned by experience."*

The first part of the fourth article — in which they apply the
principle of the necessity of divine grace to the whole process of
sanctification — is to be regarded in the same light as the third, —
namely, as sound in itself, but contradicted on other occasions by
themselves, because inconsistent with the general spirit of their
system. In the end of the fourth article, however, they have
introduced a statement, which forms the subject of one of the
leading departments of the controversy. It is in these words :
" Quoad vero modum operationis istius gratige, ilia non est irre-
sistibilis." Calvinists, in general, do not admit that this is an
accurate statement of the question, and do not undertake, abso-
lutely, and without some explanation of the principal term, to
defend the position here by implication ascribed to them, — namelj,
that the grace of God, in conversion, is irresistible. Still the
statement points, and was intended to point, to an important sub-
ject of controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians, —
one in which a real and important difference of opinion exists.
It is usually discussed by Calvinists under the heads of effectual
calling and efficacious grace, and it will be necessary to devote
to it some portion of our attention.

The way and manner in which faith is produced, and in which
conversion is effected, depend somewhat upon the power or capa-
city which man has, by nature, of doing anything spiritually good
and acceptable to God ; and that, again, depends upon the entire-
ness or totality of the corruption or depravity that attaches to man
through the fall. And hence it was, that though the Arminians
had not, in what they laid down upon the mode or manner of con-
version, said anything directly about men's natural depravity, the
Synod of Dort, in their canons on the third and fourth articles,

* C. iii. pp. 129, 130. Ed. 1850.

392 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

included and expounded the doctrine of man's entire depravity by
nature, and his inability to do anything spiritually good, and made
this the basis — as the Scripture does — of their whole doctrine
with respect to the cause of faith, — the necessity and nature of
regeneration and conversion, — the work of the Spirit, — and the
principles by which His operations are regulated, in applying to
men individually the benefits purchased for them by Christ.

I have thought it proper to explain why it was that the subject
of man's natural depravity did not occupy so prominent a place as
might have been expected in the formal discussion of the Armi-
nian controversy, when it first arose, about the time of the Synod
of Dort, — at least as it was conducted on the Arminian side, —
although it really lies at the root of the whole difference, as was
made more palpably manifest in the progress of the discussion,
when the followers of Arminius developed their views upon this
subject more fully, and deviated further and further from the
doctrine of the Bible and the Reformation on the subject of the
natural state and character of men. I do not mean, however, in
proceeding with the examination of the Arminian controversy, to
dwell upon this topic ; because I have already considered pretty
fully the subjects of original sin and free-will in connection with
the Pelagian controversy. The doctrine of most Arminians upon
these subjects is, in substance, that of the Church of Rome, as
defined by the Council of Trent, — that is, it holds true of them
both that they qualify or limit the extent or completeness of the
depravity which attaches to man by nature, in consequence of the
fall, so as to leave room for free-will, in the sense of a natural power
or ability in men to do something that is spiritually good as well
as to do what is spiritually evil ; and thus to represent man as able,
in the exercise of his own natural powers, to contribute, in some
measure, to the production of faith, and at least to prepare himself
for turning to God and doing His will. In discussing this subject,
in opposition to the doctrine of the Pelagians and the Church of
Rome, — which is very much the same as that of the generality
of Arminians, — I took occasion to explain pretty fully the great
doctrine of the Reformation and of our own Confession of Faith,
about the connection between men's entire moral corruption and
the entire bondage or servitude of their will to sin because of de-
pravity, or their inability to will or to do anything spiritually good,
— the only species of bondage or necessity, or of anything opposed

Sec. IV.] ORIGINAL SIN. 393

in any sense to freedom of will, which, upon scriptural grounds,
as Calvinists, or because of anything contained in our Confession
of Faith, we are called upon to maintain. But while right views
of the entire depravity of man's moral nature, and of the thorough
bondage or servitude of his will to sin, because of this depravity,
— or, as our Confession says, " his total loss, by the fall into a
state of sin, of all ability of will to any spiritual good accompany-
ing salvation," — should, when applied and carried out, settle the
questions which have been raised as to the production of faith
and the cause of conversion, and the nature and character of the
gracious operation of the Holy Spirit in effecting these results, —
the topics usually discussed under the head of effectual calling, —
the sufficiency, efficacy, and, in some sense, irresistibility of grace,
— yet the full exposition of these latter topics was not brought out
until the Arminian and Jansenistic controversies arose in the
Protestant and Romish churches respectively in the seventeenth
century. And while the chief topics involved in these two great
controversies were substantially the same, they present, in regard
to the particular topic now before us, this remarkable and interest-
ing contrast, that while in the Protestant Church the Arminians
corrupted the doctrine of the Reformers with regard to effectual
calling, and the efficacy of divine grace, or of the work of the
Spirit in regeneration, without, at first at least, formally denying
man's depravity and moral inability ; on the other hand, the Jan-
senists in the Church of Rome strenuously maintained what were,
in substance, scriptural and Calvinistic views in regard to the
efficacy of grace, without formally denying the corrupt doctrine
of the Council of Trent in regard to original sin and free-will.

We shall advert to this subject of effectual calling, and the
nature and efficacy of divine grace, or of the work of the Spirit,
in producing faith and regeneration, as suggested by the third
and fourth articles of the Synod of Dort, before we proceed to
consider the important subject of the first article, — the great
doctrine of Predestination or Election ; and we shall follow this
order, partly for reasons of convenience suggested by the topics
we have already been led to consider, and partly for reasons
founded on the nature of the case, and the intrinsic connection of
the subjects to which we may afterwards have occasion to refer.*

* ViJe Owen, Spanheim, Stapfer, Molinaei Armtome.

(

394 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.;

Sec. 5. — Universal and Effectual Calling.

We have had occasion, in discussing the subject of the atone-
ment, to explain the distinction which has been generally made
by divines between the impetration and the application of the
blessings of redemption, and to advert especially to the use, or
rather the abuse, of it by the Arminians, in maintaining that
impetration and application are not only distinct in themselves,
but separable, and often in fact separated, — that is, that Christ a
impetrated the spiritual blessings of reconciliation and forgiveness
for many to whom they are never applied, who never actually re-
ceive or partake of them, — a position, as we have seen, which can
be made to assume something like plausibility only by maintaining
that reconciliation and forgiveness are not reconciliation and for-
giveness, but merely something preparatory to or tending towards
them. Calvinists admit that the impetration and the applica-
tion of spiritual blessings are distinct things, — impetration being
the immediate effect of Christ's work, and being completed when
Christ's sacrifice of Himself in men's room was presented and
accepted ; and application, or the actual bestowal of these bless-
ings upon men individually, being the result of the operation of
the Holy Spirit, when by Him men individually are united to
Christ through faith, so as actually to receive the blessings which
He purchased for them, and are created again in Christ Jesus by
His almighty power. Arminians hold that spiritual blessings —
at least reconciliation and pardon — were impetrated or purchased
for all men, but that they are applied only to some ; while Cal-
vinists hold that they were purchased only for some, but that they
are applied to all for whom they were purchased. Tliis disjunc-
tion or separation of impetration and application-^— an essential
feature of the Arminian scheme — compels them, as I formerly
illustrated, first, to explain away the true scriptural import of the
blessings which they admit to have been purchased, — to reduce
reconciliation to reconciliability, pardon to a possibility of pardon,
salvation to salvability ; and, secondly, to deny altogether that
other blessings, equally indispensable to the salvation of men indi-
vidually,— such as faith and regeneration, — are to be regarded as
the fruits of Christ's purchase. These are corruptions of Chris-
tian doctrine not peculiar to the Arminians. They must be held
in substance by all who believe in an unlimited atonement, if they

Sec. v.] universal AND EFFECTUAL CALLING. 395

will follow out their principles consistently. This has been already-
explained, and we have to do now only with the application of the
blessings of redemption ; and with this, too, not as procured and
secured by the work of Christ, but only as actually effected in
men individually by the work of the Holy Spirit, the necessity of
whose agency in this matter is admitted by all but Socinians.

This whole subject, taken in its widest sense, may be regarded
as resolving into this question : What provision has God made
for imparting to men individually the blessings which Christ pur-
chased for them, and which are indispensable to their deliverance
and salvation? and what are the principles which regulate or
determine the actual results of this provision in the pardon, con-
version, and salvation of some men, and in the continued guilt
and impenitence, and the everlasting misery, of others ? It will
be recollected that, having reserved the subject of predestination
for future consideration, we have not, in examining this question,
anything to. do, in the first instance, with the decree, purpose, or
design of the divine mind in regard to individuals, but only with
the provision made by God for executing His decrees or accom-
plishing His purposes, as it is presented to our contemplation, and
with the results which flow from it. It is with the providence,
not the decrees, of God, that we have at present to do ; and in
this statement the word providence is not to be understood in the
more limited sense in which it is sometimes employed, as contra-
distinguished from grace, but as including it. God executes all
His decrees or purposes, with respect to the human race, in His
works of creation and providence, — that is, in creating and there-
after regulating all things ; and though it is common to employ
the word providence as descriptive only of that department of the
divine procedure, in regulating and governing the world, which
has respect to material, external, and temporal things, and to
apply the word grace to that department of the divine actings
which bear immediately upon the conversion, sanctification, and
salvation of sinners, and is ascribed in Scripture to the special
agency of the Holy Spirit ; and though it is right that these two
departments of the divine procedure should be distinguished from
each other, yet this mode of distinguishing them is neither sanc-
tioned by Scripture usage, nor very accurate in itself. All that
God does in regard to the world and the human race, after creat-
ing them, is comprehended in His providence, or in the supreme

396 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.:

dominion which He is ever exercising over all His creatures and:
over all their actions; and this providence, therefore, compre
hends all that He does in the dispensation of the Spirit, — in
communicating that grace, or those gracious supernatural influ
ences, on which the actions and the destinies of men so essen-
tially depend.

The general provision which God has made for imparting to
men individually the blessings which Christ purchased by the
shedding of His precious blood, may be said to consist in these
three things : first, the making known to men what Christ has
done and suffered for their salvation ; secondly, the offering to
men the blessings which Christ purchased, and the inviting men
to accept of them ; and, thirdly, the communication of the Holy
Spirit to dispose or enable them to accept the offer, — to comply
with the invitation, — that is, to repent and believe, and to effect,
or contribute to effect, in them the renovation or sanctification of
their natures. Calvinists and Arminians agree in admitting that
these things, when stated in this somewhat vague and indefinite
form, which has been adopted intentionally for the present, con-
stitute the provision which God has made for imparting to men
individually the benefits of redemption ; but they differ materially
in their views upon some important points connected with the
necessity and the nature of the different branches of this provi-
sion, and the principles that regulate their application and results.
The Arminians, believing in universal grace, in the sense of God's
love to all men, — that is, omnibus et singulis, or His design and
purpose to save all men conditionally, — and in universal redemp-
tion, or Christ's dying for all men, — consistently follow out these
views by asserting a universal proclamation to men of God's pur-
pose of mercy, — a universal vocation, or offer and invitation, to
men to receive pardon and salvation, — accompanied by a universal
sufficient grace, — gracious assistance actually and universally be-
stowed, sufficient to enable all men, if they choose, to attain to the
full possession of spiritual blessings, and ultimately to salvation.
Calvinists, while they admit that pardon and salvation are offered
indiscriminately to all to whom the gospel is preached, and that
all who can be reached should be invited and urged to come to
Christ and embrace Him, deny that this flows from, or indicates,
any design or purpose on God's part to save all men ; and without
pretending to understand or unfold all the objects or ends of this

Sec. v.] universal AND EFFECTUAL CALLING. 397

arrangement, or to assert that it has no other object or end what-
ever, regard it as mainly designed to effect the result of caUing
out and saving God's chosen people ; and they deny that grace, or
gracious divine assistance, sufficient to produce faith and regene-
ration, is given to all men. They distinguish between the out- "
ward vocation or calling and the internal or effectual, and regard
the real regulating principle that determines the acceptance or
non-acceptance of the call or invitation of the gospel by men
individually, to be the communication or the non-communication
of the efficacious agency of the Holy Spirit ; Arminians, of course,
resolving this — for there is no other alternative — into men's own
free-will, their own improvement or non-improvement of the suf-
ficient grace given to them all.

In investigating these subjects, the first thing to be attended
to manifestly, is the proclaiming or making known to men God's
purpose of mercy or way of salvation ; and here, at the very out-
set, Arminians are involved in difficulties which touch the founda-
tions of their whole scheme of theology, and from which they have
never been able to extricate themselves. They can scarcely deny
that it is at least the ordinary general rule of God's procedure, in
imparting to men the blessings of redemption, that their possession
of them is made dependent upon their becoming acquainted with
what Christ did for sinners, and making a right use and applica-
tion of this knowledge. If this be. so, then it would seem that
we might naturally expect that — if the Arminian doctrines of
universal grace and universal redemption are well founded — God
would have made provision for securing that a knowledge of His
love and purpose of mercy, and of the atonement of Christ — the
great means for carrying it into practical effect — should be com-
municated to all men, or at least brought within their reach.
And Calvinists have always regarded it as a strong argument
against the Arminian doctrines of universal grace and universal
redemption, and in favour of their own views of the sovereign
purposes of God, that, in point of fact, so large a portion of the
human race have been always left in entire ignorance of God's
mercy, and of the way of salvation revealed in the gospel ; nay,
in such circumstances as, to all appearance, throw insuperable
obstacles in the way of their attaining to that knowledge of God
and of Jesus Christ, which is eternal life.

It is a fact, that a large portion of every successive genera-

398

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVi

tion that has peopled the earth's surface, have been left in thii
condition, — a fact which we should contemplate with profoun(
reverence and holy awe, but which we should neither turn from,
nor attempt to explain away, and which, like everything else irf
• creation and providence, ought to be applied for increasing our
knowledge of God, of His character and ways. The diversities
in the condition of diiferent nations with respect to religious privi-
leges or the means of grace, as well as the determination of the
condition and opportunities in this respect of each individual, as
regulated ordinarily in a great measure by the time and place of
his birth, are to be ascribed to the sovereign good pleasure of
God. He has determined all this according to the counsel of His
own will. We can give no other full or complete explanation of
these things. Partial explanations may sometimes be given in
regard to particular countries ; but these do not reach the root of
the matter in any case, and are palpably inadequate as applied to
the condition of the world at large. We can assign no reason,
for instance, why it is that Great Britain, which, at the time of
our Saviour's appearance upon earth, was in a state of thorough
ignorance and barbarism, should now possess so largely herself,
and be disseminating so widely to others, the most important
spiritual privileges ; or why we, individually, have been born in
this highly favoured land, instead of coming into existence amid
the deserts of Africa, which does not resolve itself, either imme-
diately or ultimately, into the good pleasure of God. Arminians
have laboured to reconcile all this, as a matter of fact, with their
defective and erroneous views of the divine sovereignty, and with
their unscriptural doctrines of universal grace and universal re-
demption ; but they have not usually been satisfied themselves
with their own attempts at explanation, and have commonly at
last admitted, that there were mysteries in this matter which
could not be explained, and which must just be resolved into the
sovereignty of God and the unsearchableness of His counsels.

We have, however, to do with this topic, at present, only as
it is connected with the alleged universal proclamation of God's
purpose of mercy to sinners, or of a way of salvation. Arminians
are bound to maintain, in order to expound with something like
consistency the great leading principles of their scheme of theo-
^^gy? t^i^t God has made such a revelation to all men, as that, by
the right use of it, or if they do not fail in the due improvement

Sec. v.] universal AND EFFECTUAL CALLING. 399

of what they have, they may, and will, attain to salvation. This
has led many of them not only to maintain that men may be, and
that many have been, saved by Christ, or upon the ground of
His atonement, who never had any knowledge of what He had
done for men, but also to devise a sort of preaching of the gospel,
or proclamation of the way of salvation, without a revelation, and
by means merely of the works of nature and providence, — views
which are plainly inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture.
While they are compelled to admit an exercise of the divine
sovereignty — that is, of God's acting in a way, the reasons of
which we do not know, and cannot trace or explain — in the dif-
ferent degrees of knowledge and of privilege which He com-
municates to different nations, they usually maintain that it is
indispensable, in order to the vindication of the divine character,
that all men — however^^inferior in degree the privileges of some
may be to those of others — should have, at least, such means
of knowing God, as that, by the right use and improvement of
them, they can attain to salvation. We, of course, do not deny
that there are mysteries in this subject which we cannot explain,
and which we can only contemplate with profound reverence and
awe ; or that men's everlasting condition will be, in some measure,
regulated by the privileges and opportunities they have enjoyed ;
or that all who perish shall perish justly and righteously, having
incurred real guilt by the ignorance of God which they actually
manifested ; but we cannot, because of the difficulties attaching
to this mysterious subject, renounce the plain scriptural principle,
that it is " eternal life to know God, and Jesus Christ, whom He
has sent;" or dispute the plain matter of fact, that, as the certain
result of arrangements which God has made, many of our fellow-
men are placed in circumstances in which they cannot attain to
that knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ on which eternal life
depends.

Some Arminians have been so much impressed with these
considerations, as to indicate a willingness to make a sort of com-
promise upon this subject, by agreeing to exclude from happiness
those to whom Christ has not been made known, provided they
are not consigned to misery ; that is, they have been disposed to
cherish the notion of an intermediate eternal state, in addition to
the two which the Bible reveals to us, as the ultimate and ever-
lasting abodes of all the individuals of the human race, — heaven

400

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

being provided for those who have believed the gospel, — hell for ii
those who have rejected it when it was proclaimed to them, — and ■
an intermediate state, without suffering, for those who never
heard it.* This idea is thus expressed by Limborch. After de-
claring it to be very probable that men who make a good use
of the light they have will be graciously saved through Ciirist,
though they have never heard of Him, he adds : " Vel, si id noli-
mus, antequam divina bonitas eos ad inferni cruciatus damnare
credatur, sicut triplex hominum in hoc sevo est status, creden-
tium, incredulorum, et ignorantiuni ; ita etiam triplex post banc
vitam hominum status, concedendus videtur : vitae seternae, qui est
credentium : cruciatuum infernalium, qui est incredulorum ; et
prgeter hosce, status ignorantium." f This awful subject should
certainly preclude the indulgence of those feelings which mere
controversial discussion is apt to produce, — anything like an ap-
proach to an eager contending for victory ; but it is right, from
a regard to the interests of truth, to observe, that the only evi-
dence he produces for these notions — and which he seems to
think must prove one or other of them — is the general scriptural
principle, that men shall be dealt with according to the oppor-
tunities they have enjoyed. This principle is manifestly insuffi-
cient to support such notions ; so that the whole matter resolves
into this, — that Arminians will rather invent theories about sub-
jects of which they can know nothing, than believe what God has
plainly told us concerning Himself, when this does not coincide
with the previous conceptions they may have formed of His
character and His ways. J

They are usually glad, however, to escape from this branch
of the subject, about the universal proclamation of God's grace,
and of a way of salvation to all men, — feeling, apparently, that
the plain facts of the case, viewed in connection with the plainly
revealed, though awful and mysterious, doctrines of Scripture,
cannot easily be reconciled with their system ; and they hasten
on to try their notions of universal vocation, and sufficient grace,

* This was denied by Arminius
himself, Orat. de Ohjectu TheoJoyix,
quoted in Edwards' Veritas Redux,
p. 432.

t Limborch, Theol. lib. iv. c. xi.
p. 363. Ed. 168G.

X Others have supposed that God
may extend their probation beyond
this life. Scot's Christian Life^
quoted in Edwards' Veritas Redux,
p. 444.

Sec. v.] UNIVERSAL AND EFFECTUAL CALLING. 401

in the case of all to whom the gospel is made known. In mak-
ing this transition, they usually allege that they have no desire
to inquire curiously into the condition and destiny of those to
whom the gospel is not made known, — that we have to do chiefly
with the case of those who have an opportunity of knowing
God's revelation, and with the principles which regulate their
fate, — and that it is quite sufficient to overthrow the Calvinistic
system of theology, if it can be proved that sufficient grace is
communicated to all of them. We have no satisfaction, any
more than they, in dwelling upon the mysterious subject of the
destiny of the innumerable multitudes of our fellow-men who
have died without having had an opportunity of becoming ac-
quainted with the only name given under heaven or among men
whereby we can be saved ; — we indulge in no speculations upon
their fate, beyond what Scripture sanctions ; — we leave them in
the hands of the Judge of all the earth, who, we are assured,
will do right. But there is nothing in all this to warrant or
excuse us in refusing to believe what Scripture teaches, or to
contemplate in the light of Scripture what the condition of the
world sets before us ; and it is the more necessary and important
that we should realize and apply — so far as we have clear and
certain materials — the doctrines and the facts bearing upon this
subject, awful and incomprehensible as it undoubtedly is, when
we find that these doctrines and facts afford proofs of the erro-
neousness of some of the views of the divine character and
government, and of the way of salvation, which the Arminians
have been accustomed to propound. As to their allegation that
it is sufficient to refute Calvinism, if they can establish their
principle as applicable to ail who hear the gospel, it is enough,
at present, to remind them that they have not only to attack
Calvinism, but to defend their own system ; and that the survey
of the condition of the world at large, taken in connection with
doctrines plainly taught in Scripture, — and this is the. first sub-
ject which naturally presents itself for examination in this de-
partment of the controversy, — not only answers many of their
common objections against Calvinism, but suggests objections to
the Arrainian scheme of theology, which its advocates are unable
satisfactorily to dispose of.

Let us briefly advert to the application they make of their
principles to all who live within the sound of the gospel. The
3 — VOL. II. 2 C

402 THE ARMINIAN CONTEOVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

view they give of the state and condition of those persons is this,
— that they are all equally called and invited to the reception and
enjoyment of the blessings which Christ purchased for all men, —
that as God desires and purposes the salvation of all of them, He
gives to them all such grace or gracious assistance as is sufficient
to enable them all to repent and believe, if they choose, and as
will certainly effect their conversion and salvation, unless they
refuse to use and improve it aright. Calvinists admit that all to
whom the gospel is preached, are called or invited to come to
Christ and to embrace Him ; but they deny that this flows from,
or indicates on God's part, a design or purpose to save them all ;
and they deny that grace or gracious assistance, sufficient to enable
them to repent and believe, is communicated to them all. They
distinguish between the outward call addressed to all by the word,
and the inward or effectual call addressed to some by the Spirit,
whereby they are really enabled to accept of the offer, — to comply
with the invitation, — and thus to believe in Christ and to turn to
God. The great facts presented by the preaching of the gospel,
viewed in connection with its results, are these, — that some believe
it and submit to its influence, and are, in consequence, renewed
in the spirit of their minds, and enabled thereafter to walk in
the way of God's commandments; while others, with the same
outward opportunities, with the same truths addressed to them,
and the same arguments and motives urged upon them, continue
to reject the truth, and remain wholly unaffected by it, in the
great features of their character, and in the leading motives by
which they are animated. And the question in dispute virtually
resolves into this : What is the true cause or explanation of this
difference in the result in the case of -different individuals? They
all enjoy the same outward privileges ; they all possess substan-
tially the same natural capacities ; they are all warranted and
bound to believe the truth proclaimed to them ; they are all in-
vited to come to Christ, and to receive salvation through Him.
The call or invitation is seriously or honestly addressed to them all.
Upon this point the statement of the Synod of Dort is this, — and
it is quoted with cordial approbation by Turretine,* and concurred
in generally by Calvinists : " Quotquot per evangelium vocantur,
serio vocantur. Serio enim et verissime ostendit Deus Verbo sue,

* Turrcttin., Loc. xv. Qu. ii. sec. xiv.

Sec. v.] universal AND EFFECTUAL CALLING. 403

quid sibi gratum sit, nimirum ut vocati ad se veniant. Serio etiam
omnibus ad se venientibus et credentibus requiem animarum et
vitam aeternam promittit." Calvinists likewise believe that all
who reject the gospel, and refuse to submit to it and to turn to
God, are themselves fully responsible for doing so, — are guilty of
sin, and justly expose themselves to punishment on tliis account ;
or, as the Synod of Dort says, " PIujus culpa non est in Evan
gelio, — nee in Christo per Evangelium oblato, — nee in Deo per
Evangelium vocante, et dona etiam varia iis conferente, — sed in
ipsis vocatis." There is no dispute upon these points, though
Arminians attempt to show that Calvinists cannot hold these
doctrines consistently with some of their other principles.

Were this all that is revealed to us as to the cause of the
difference of the results, the Arminian doctrine might be true,
that all had received sufficient grace to enable them to accept of
the call, and that the only principle that could be brought to bear
upon the explanation of the difference of the results, was, that
some used and improved aright the grace they had received, and
others did not. This is true, but it is not the whole truth upon
the subject. The Scriptures not only inform us that all who re-
fuse to repent and believe, are responsible for this, and incur guilt
by it ; they likewise tell us of the way and manner in which faith
and conversion are produced in those who believe and turn to
God ; and what they tell us upon this point, makes it manifest
that the result, in their case, is not to be ascribed to anything
that is merely common to them with others, either in their natural
capacities or in the grace of God, — that is, in gracious assistance
communicated by Him, — but to a special distinguishing work or
influence of His Spirit bestowed upon them, and not bestowed on
tlie rest. This is what Calvinists commonly call special, distin-
guishing, efficacious grace, as opposed to the Arminian universal
sufficient grace ; they regard it as a peculiar operation of God's
Spirit bestowed upon some and not upon others, — the true and
real cause of faith and regeneration wherever they exist, and cer-
tainly and effectually securing the production of faith and regene-
ration wherever it is bestowed.

Now the questions to be discussed upon this point are these :
First, Do the Scriptures set before us such a special, distinguishing
operation of the Spirit, bestowed upon some and not bestowed upon
others % and, secondly, Do they represent this special grace or dis-

404 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

tinguishing gracious operation of the Spirit, as the true cause or
source of faith and regeneration wherever they exist, — the real
reason or explanation of the different results exhibited, — in that
some men repent and believe, while others, with the same outward
call or vocation, and with the same external privileges, continue
in impenitence and unbelief? I do not mean to enter into an
examination of the scriptural evidence, but will only make one or
two observations upon the points involved in the discussion, as it
has been usually conducted.

It is important to fix in our minds a clear conception of the
alternatives in the explanation of this matter, according as the
Calvinistic or the Arminian doctrine upon the subject is adopted.
The thing to be accounted for is, — the positive production of faith
and regeneration in some men ; while others continue, under the
same outward call and privileges, in their natural state of im-
penitence and unbelief. Now this is just virtually the question,
Who maketh those who have passed from death to life, and are
now advancing towards heaven, to differ from those who are still
walking in the broad way ? Is it God ? or is it themselves ? The
Calvinists hold that it is God who makes this difference ; the
Arminians — however they may try to conceal this, by general
statements about the grace of God and the assistance of the
Spirit — virtually and practically ascribe the difference to be-
lievers themselves. God has given sufficient grace — everything
necessary for effecting the result — to others as well as to them.
There is no difference in the call addressed to them, or in the
grace vouchsafed to them. This is equal and alike. There is a
difference in the result; and from the sufficiency and consequent
substantial equality of the universal grace vouchsafed, this dif-
ference in the result must necessarily be ascribed, as to its real
adequate cause, to something in themselves, — not to God's grace,
not to what He graciously bestowed upon them, but to what they
themselves were able to do, and have done, in improving aright
what God communicated to them. If sufficient grace is com-
municated to all who are outwardly called, then no more than
what is sufficient is communicated to those who actually repent
and believe ; for, to assert this, is virtually to deny or retract
the position, tliat what was communicated to those who continue
impenitent and unbelieving, was sufficient or adequate, and thus
to contradict their fundamental doctrine upon this whole sub-

Sec. VI.] EFFICACIOUS AND IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. 405

ject.* And when the true state of the question, and the real
alternatives involved, are thus brought out, there is no difficulty
in seeing and proving that the Arminian doctrine is inconsistent
with the plain teaching of Scripture, — as to the great principles
which regulate or determine men's spiritual character and eternal
destiny, — the true source and origin of all that is spiritually good
in them, — the real nature of faith and regeneration, as implying
changes which men are utterly unable to produce, or even to co-
operate, in the first instance, in originating ; and as being not
only the work of God in men, — the gift of God to men, — but
also, and more particularly, as being in every instance the result
of a special operation of the Holy Ghost, — an operation repre-
sented as altogether peculiar and distinguishing, — bestowed upon
some and not upon others, according to the counsel of God's own
will, and certainly or infallibly effecting, wherever it is bestowed,
all those things that accompany salvation.

Sec. 6. — Efficacious and Irresistible Grace.

We have stated generally the nature and import of the appli-
cation of the blessings which Christ purchased for men, — or the
way and manner in which God imparts these blessings to men
individually, — explaining the Arminian doctrines of universal
vocation and sufficient grace, as applicable, first, to mankind in
general, and, secondly, to all to whom the gospel is made known ;
and contrasting them with the doctrines generally held by Cal-
vinists, in regard to effectual calling and efficacious grace. We
have seen that, as we cannot assign any other adequate cause or
reason, except the good pleasure of God, why so many of our
fellow-men have always been, and still are, left in a state in which
they cannot attain to a knowledge of the way of salvation, while
others enjoy the glorious light of the gospel ; so we are shut up
also to ascribe to a special distinguishing gracious operation of
God's Spirit, — bestowed upon some and not upon others, — the
fact, that of those who do enjoy the same outward vocation and
the same external privileges, some reject the call, refuse to believe
and to turn to God, while others believe and are converted. The

* Hottingeri Fata Doctrinx de Predestinatione et gratia Dei Salutari.
Exercitatio ii. pp. 495 et seq.

406 THE ARMINIAN CONTEOVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

provision which God has made for imparting to men individually
the blessings which Christ purchased, may be ranked under two
general heads, — namely, first, outward privileges or means of
grace, the knowledge of the way of salvation, and the offers and
invitations of the gospel ; and, secondly, what is commonly called
grace itself, or the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit upon
men's minds, enabling or assisting them to repent and believe.
We have already considered the first of these subjects, and have
entered upon the explanation of the second, — stating, generally,
the Arminian doctrine of sufficient grace, bestowed upon all men
who hear the gospel, to enable them to believe it if they choose ;
and the Calvinistic doctrine of effectual calling and efficacious
grace, bestowed only upon some, and constituting the true cause
or reason why they believe and are converted, while others con-
tinue in their natural state of impenitence and unbelief. The
establishment of the doctrine of special distinguishing grace, be-
stowed by God on some and not on others, — and certainly pro-
ducing in all on whom it is bestowed faith and regeneration, —
may be said to terminate the controversy between Calvinists and
Arminians upon this important point.

The controversy, however, has branched out into several other
questions, about which — though they are all virtually included
under that of special distinguishing grace — it may be proper to
give a brief explanation, especially as I have not yet adverted,
directly and formally, to the point on which the Arminians com-
monly represent the whole controversy upon this subject as turn-
ing,— namely, what they call the irresistibility of grace. Arminius
himself, and the more evangelical of those who have generally
been called after his name, professing to hold the total depravity
of man by nature, have asserted the necessity of the special super-
natural agency of the Spirit to the production of faith and re-
generation; and, in general terms, have indeed ascribed these
results wholly to the grace of God and the operation of the Spirit;
while they professed to be anxious only to show that, as to the
mode of the Spirit's operation,, it is not irresistible. The discus-
sions, however, which have taken place upon this subject, have
made it manifest that there are other deviations from sound doc-
trine on the subject of the work of the Spirit in producing faith
and regeneration, into which Arminians are naturally, if not
•necessarily, led ; and the subject is inseparably connected with

Sec. VI.] EFFICACIOUS AND IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. 407

right views of the entire depravity of man, and of his inabihty, in
his natural state, to will or to do anything spiritually good, — sul)-
jects on the consideration of which, for reasons formerly stated, I
do not at present enter.

Arminius, in his declaration addressed to the States of Holland
in 1608, the year before his death, stated his views upon the
subject in this way : " I ascribe to grace THE commencement,

THE CONTINUANCE, AND THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL GOOD, —

and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though
already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good
at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and
exciting^ this following and co-operating grace. From this state-
ment it will clearly appear that I am by no means injurious or
unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much
to man's free-will : For the whole controversy reduces itself to
the solution of this question, ' Is the grace of God a certain,
irresistible force ? ' That is, the controversy does not relate to
those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for
I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions and opera-
tions as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode
of operation, — whether it be irresistible or not : With respect to
which, I believe, according to the Scriptures, that many persons
resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered."* In
like manner, as we have seen, his followers at the Synod of Dort,
in their declaration as to the third and fourth articles, spoke to
the same effect ; though some of the very same men who pro-
fessed so much scriptural truth at that time, — and especially
-Episcopius, — afterwards adopted, or at least promulgated, senti-
ments much more Pelagian in regard to the nature and necessity
of grace. It would have been well if all who have been called
Arminians had ascribed as much as Arminius did to the grace
of God, in the conversion and sanctification of men. But we
cannot admit that, on the ground of the statement we have quoted,
— strong and plausible as it is, — he can be proved to be guiltless
of attributing too much to man's free-will, or must be regarded
as giving a scriptural view of the nature and mode of the Spirit's
operation. Notwithstanding all that he has said, in ascribing

* Nichols' Life and Writings of Ar- [p. 98. Nicliols' Calvinism and Ar-
minius, vol. i. p. 600. Armiuii Opera, \ minianism Compared.

408 THE AEMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

to grace, and to the operation of the Spirit, the commencement,
the continuance, and consummation of all good, — that is — for it
does not necessarily mean more than tJds — that nothing spiritually
good is produced in man, without, or except by, the agency of
the Spirit, — it is quite possible that he may have held such a co-
operation or concurrence of man himself, in the exercise of his
own natural powers and capacities, with the Spirit, in the whole
process by which faith and regeneration are produced, as to neu-
tralize or obscure the grace of God in the matter ; and to make
man a joint or concurrent cause with God even in originating
those changes which are indispensable to salvation. And this^
indeed, is just what is implied in the denial that the mode of the
Spirits ope^'-ation iii producing conversion is irresistible.

Calvinists, indeed, do not admit that it is an accurate mode of
stating the question, to put it in this form, — whether or not the
grace or gracious operation of the Spirit be irresistible ? for they
do not dispute that, in some sense, men do resist the Spirit ; and
they admit that resistance to the Spirit may be predicated both of
the elect and of the non-elect, — the non-elect having operations of
the Spirit put forth upon them which they resist or throw off, and
never yield to, — and the elect having generally resisted the opera-
tions of the Spirit for a time before they yielded to them. Ac-
cordingly, although the only thing in the Arminian declaration, as
given in to the Synod of Dort, which was regarded as containing
a positive error in doctrine, was the assertion that, as to the mode
of the Spirit's operation in conversion, it was not irresistible, there
is not, in the canons of the synod, any formal deliverance, in ter-
minis^ upon this precise point, though all that the Arminians meant
to assert, by denying the irresistibility of grace, is clearly and fully
condemned. This statement likewise holds true, in all its parts,
of our own Confession of Faith. It does not contain, in terminis,
an assertion of the irresistibility, or a denial of the resistibility, of
the grace of God in conversion ; but it contains a clear and full
assertion of the whole truth which Arminians have generally in-
tended to deny, by asserting the resistibility of grace, and which
Calvinists have intended to assert, when — accommodating them-
selves to the Arminian phraseology, but not admitting its accuracy
— they have maintained that grace in conversion is irresistible.

They object to the word irresistible as applied to their doc-
trine, because of its ambiguity, — because, in one sense, they hold

Sec. VI.] EFFICACIOUS AND IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. 409

grace in conversion to be resistible, and in another, not. It may-
be said to be resistible, and to be actually resisted, inasmuch as
motions or operations of the Spirit upon men's minds — which, in
their general nature and bearing, may be said to tend towards
the production of conversion — are resisted, or not yielded to, by
the non-elect, and for a time even by the elect ; while it may be
said to be irresistible, — or, as Oalvinists usually prefer calling it,
insuperable, or infrustrable, or certainly efficacious, — inasmuch
as, according to their doctrine, whenever the gracious divine
power that is sufficient to produce conversion, and necessary to
effect it, is put forth, it certainly overcomes all the resistance that
men are able to make, and infallibly produces the result.

And here I may remark by the way, that it is a point some-
times controverted among Oalvinists themselves, whether the non-
elect are ever the subjects of motions or operations of the Spirit,
which, in their own nature, tend towards conversion, or possess,
in a measure, those general properties which, when they possessed
them in a higher degree, produce conversion. Upon this point,
our Confession of Faith * takes the side of asserting that they
" may have some common operations of the Spirit ; " and this
view of the matter is more accordant than the opposite one with
what seems to be indicated by Scripture upon the subject, while
it is not liable to any serious objection. But Oalvinists, while
differing upon this point, — which is not of much intrinsic import-
ance,— all admit that the elect do for a time resist divine grace,
or the gracious operations of the Spirit ; while they all maintain
that, whenever that special grace which is necessary to conversion,
and which alone is sufficient to effect it, is put forth, men cannot
resist, or overcome, or frustrate it, and do, in fact, certainly and
necessarily yield to its influence. This doctrine is asserted in our
Confession of Faith — not in express terms, indeed, but plainly
and unequivocally — in this way : It declares that, in the work of
effectual calling, — which is asserted to be wrought in " all those
whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only," — He
renews their wills, and, by His almighty power, determines them
to that which is good, and effectually draws them to Jesus Christ,
yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace ;
and it further declares that, in this process of effectual calling,

* C. X. s. iv.

410 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

man is " altogether passive," " until, being quickened and renewed
by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and
to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it."

If the depravity of man by nature is so entire or total, as thai
he labours under an inability to will anything spiritually good,
and therefore — for this is a necessary consequence of his want
of ability to will — must have his will renewed by a power from
without himself, and must be wholly passive in the commencement
of the process by which this renovation of the will is effected,
then it is evident that — though he may have resisted an inferior
measure of the power that tended in the direction of renewing
him — the power by which the renovation of the vi'ill was actually
effected, must have been such that he could not resist or overcome
it, — that whenever power sufficient to effect such a result was
really put forth, it must certainly remove every obstacle, and in-
fallibly accomplish the result intended. If it were a power that
could be overcome or frustrated by anything in man, it would not
be sujicient to effect the result, because there is no other source
from which any assistance or co-operation in producing the result
could be derived. Man himself is dead in sins and trespasses, —
utterly destitute, until his will has been renewed, of any ability
to will what is good ; and therefore the power which is sufficient
or adequate to renew his will, must be such as certainly to over-
come all obstacles, and infallibly produce the necessary change.
The Arminian doctrine is, that when all the means have been
used, and the whole power has been put forth, that are sufficient
to produce faith and regeneration, and that do, in point of fact,
produce them, wherever they are produced, all men may, and
many do, resist these means and this powder, and, in the exercise
of their own free-will, continue impenitent and unbelieving, over-
coming or frustrating the very same power or agency — the same
both in kind and degree — to which others yield, and are, in con-
sequence, converted and saved. This is plainly — whatever gene-
ral statements may be made about the necessity of divine grace —
to ascribe to men a natural power to will what is spiritually good,
and to make this natural power to will what is spiritually good
the real determining cause of their conversion, — that which dis-
criminates or distinguishes those who repent and believe from
those who continue in impenitence and unbelief. Men attribute
too much to man's free-will, — to adopt the language of Arminius

Sec. VI.] EFFICACIOUS AND IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. 411

— when they ascribe to it any power to will what is spiritually
good, or any activity or power of co-operating with divine grace
in the origin or commencement of the process of regeneration.
And unless this be ascribed to it, the power by which regenera-
tion is actually effected must be irresistible, — must be such that
men cannot frustrate or overcome it.

It will be seen, then, that the doctrine of the irresistibility, or
insuperability, of divine grace in conversion is a necessary con-
sequence of scriptural views of man's entire depravity, and his
inability by nature to will anything spiritually good ; and that all
that Calvinists intend to set forth in maintaining this doctrine, is
declared when they assert that it is necessary that men's will be
renewed, and that, in the commencement of the process by which
this renovation is effected, they are wholly passive, — incapable of
co-operating with divine grace, or with the Holy Spirit operating
upon them, until He has, by His own almighty power, effected
an important change upon them. This change is sometimes
called regeneration, when that word is taken in its most limited
sense, as distinguished from conversion ; and, in that case, re-
generation means the first implantation of spiritual life, — the
process of vivification, or making alive, — while conversion de-
scribes the process by which men, now quickened and renewed,
— no longer passive, but active, — do willingly turn to God, and
embrace Jesus Christ as all their salvation and all their desire ;
and the whole is comprehended under the designation of effectual
calling, which includes the whole work of the Spirit, in applying
to men the blessings which Christ purchased, and in effecting
that important change in their condition and character which is,
in every instance, indispensable to. salvation.

An essential part of this process is the renovation of the will,
or the giving it a new capacity or tendency, — a power of willing
what is spiritually good, — whereas, before, it could will only what
was spiritually evil. And it is important to have our attention
directed to this feature in the process, as it is that right views of
which most directly oppose and exclude Arminian errors upon
this subject. In the description of effectual calling given in the
Shorter Catechism, it is said to be " a work of God's Spirit,
whereby, convincing us of sin and misery, enlightening our minds
in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills. He doth per-
suade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us

412 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

in the gospel." The general principles of the Arminians upon
this subject lead them to deny the renovation of the will, as a
distinct step in this process. If there be such a thing as a re-
novation of the will, it must manifestly, from the nature of the
case, be effected by a divine power; and that power, finding
nothing previously existing in or about the will, that can assist
or co-operate in the production of the result of its own renova-
tion, must be exerted in such a measure, in effecting the object,
as to be insuperable, or certainly and infallibly victorious. The
Arminians, in denying the insuperability of the grace of God in
conversion, and in maintaining that, even when a divine power
sufficient to produce conversion is put forth, men may frustrate
it and continue unconverted, not only ascribe to the will of
man, in his natural state, a power or capacity, in regard to what
is spiritually good, which is inconsistent with the necessity of its
being renewed, but also assign to the truth, or the word, an
influence or efficacy in the matter which Calvinists generally
regard as opposed to the teaching of Scripture ; and hence the
importance, not only of holding the necessity of the renovation
of the will, but also of regarding this as a distinct step in the
Spirit's work of effectual calling, from the enlightening the mind
in the knowledge of Christ.

Arminians commonly resolve regeneration, not into an al-
mighty and insuperable agency of the Spirit, operating directly
upon the will, in renovating it, by giving it a new capacity, ten-
dency, or direction, but into what they commonly call a moral
suasion, — that is, into the mere influence of motives addressed
to the understanding, and, through the understanding, operating
upon the will, — in other words, into the mere influence of the
truth, opened up and impressed by the Spirit ; while Calvinists
have usually maintained that there is a direct and immediate
operation of the Spirit upon the will itself, and not merely
through the influence of the truth operating upon the under-
standincT.*

The distinctions and explanations which have been put forth
in the discussions upon this subject, are too numerous and minute
to admit of our attempting any exposition of them : we can
merely point it out as a subject which has been much discussed,

* Turrettin., Loc. xv. Qu. vi. ; Mastricht, lib. vi. c. iii.

Sec. VI.] EFFICACIOUS AND IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. 413

and is entitled to some attention. The standards of our church,
while they do not give any formal deliverance upon this subject,
as it has been usually handled in theological discussions, and no
deliverance at all upon some of the minuter questions which have
been controverted among Calvinists regarding it, plainly enough
indicate, not only that it is necessary that the will should be re-
newed, but also that this step in the process of effectual calling
is distinct from any mere agency of the Spirit in enlightening
the understanding, — in opening up and impressing the truth
which God has revealed. And I have no doubt that this view
corresponds most fully with all that Scripture makes known to
us about men's natural condition of darkness and depravity, —
about the nature of faith and regeneration, and the agency and
the means by which they are produced.

The Arminians usually object to these views about the cer-
tain efficacy or insuperability of the grace of God in conversion,
that they are inconsistent with the nature of the human will, and
with the qualities that attach to it. They usually represent our
doctrine as implying that men are forced to believe and to turn
to God against their will, or whether they will or not. This is a
misrepresentation. Calvinists hold no such opinion ; and it can-
not be shown that their doctrine requires them to hold it. In-
deed, the full statement of their doctrine upon the subject excludes
or contradicts it. Our Confession of Faith, after giving an ac-
count of effectual calling, which plainly implies that the grace of
God in conversion is an exercise of omnipotence, and cannot be
successfully resisted, adds, " Yet so as they come most freely,
being made willing by His grace." That special operation of
the Spirit, which cannot be overcome or frustrated, is just the
renovation of the will itself, by which a power of willing what is
spiritually good — a power which it has not of itself in its natural
condition, and which it could not receive from any source but a
divine and almighty agency — is communicated to it. In the
exercise of this new power, men are able to co-operate with the
Spirit of God, guiding and directing them ; and they do this, and
do it, not by constraint, but willingly, — being led, under the in-
fluence of the news concerning Christ, and the way of salvation
which He has opened up to and impressed upon them, and the
motives which these views suggest, to embrace Christ, and to
choose that better part which shall never be taken away from

414 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

them. In the commencement of the process, they are not actors
at all ; they are wholly passive, — the subjects of a divine opera-
tion. And from the time when they begin to act in the matter,
or really to do anything, they act freely and voluntarily, guided
by rational motives, derived from the truths which their eyes
have been opened to see, and which, humanly speaking, might
have sooner led them to turn to God, had not the moral im-
potency of their wills to anything spiritually good prevented this
result. There is certainly nothing in all this to warrant the
representation, that, upon Calvinistic principles, men are forced
to repent and believe against their wills, or whether they will
or not.

Neither is there anything in this view of the subject that can
be shown to be inconsistent with any truth concerning the will of
man, or the properties attaching to it, established, either by an
examination of man's mental constitution, or by the word of God.
It is plainly inconsistent, both with reason and with revelation, to
suppose that God has created anything which He cannot regulate
and direct, absolutely and infallibly, and which He cannot regu-
late and direct without treating it inconsistently with its proper
nature, — the nature and qualities He has assigned to it. We
cannot suppose that God should have bestowed any powers or pro-
perties upon any creatures which would place them beyond His
entire and absolute control, or would require Plim, in any case, in
order to eifect any of His purposes, with them, or by them, to exer-
cise His omnipotence, in a manner that runs counter to the con-
stitution He has assigned to them. He does indeed exercise His
omnipotence in renewing men's wills, and giving them a capacity
for willing what is spiritually good ; but in doing so. He is only
restoring them, in so far, to the condition in which He originally
created them. And in the mode of doing it, while there is an exer-
cise of omnipotence, effecting a change upon them, there is nothing
done that interferes with the constitution of man, as man, or with
the nature of will, as will. Our Confession teaches,* that "God
hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is
neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined,
to good or evil." But this does not imply that God Himself can-
not, if He chooses, certainly and effectually determine it to good,

* C. ix. s. 1.

Sec. VI.] EFFICACIOUS AND IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. 415

— whatever may be necessary, in existing circumstances, in order
to secure this, — ■ without taking away the natural liberty with
which He has endued it. This natural liberty does indeed imply
a possibility of men yielding to temptation, and falling into sin ;
but it does not imply that God cannot, by an exercise of His omni-
potence, recover men from any of the consequences of the sin into
which, from the abuse of their freedom of will, they may have
fallen ; and do this without taking from them, or obstructing, the
exercise of that freedom which He originally conferred upon them.
In short, the will of man could not originally have possessed,
and never could by any process acquire, any capacity or property,
in virtue of which it should be placed beyond God's absolute con-
trol, or which should prevent Him from regulating and determin-
ing, at all times and in all circumstances, the character and actions
of His creatures. Nothing is more clearly revealed in Scripture
than this, that when God enables men to repent and believe. He
puts forth upon them an exercise of almighty power, analogous to
that by which He created all things out of nothing, or by which
He raises the dead ; but there is no ground for asserting that,
even upon the Calvinistic view of the nature of this process. He
does not treat man, in effecting this change, according to his
proper nature as a rational and responsible being. We are very
sure that no property does, or can, attach to the will of man,
whetlier fallen or unfallen, that can take it beyond the reach of
God's sovereign control, or prevent Him from directing its opera-
tions, without interfering, by a mere exercise of omnipotence,
with its true nature and essential properties. Of all the capa-
cities or properties that have ever been ascribed to the human
will, the one that has most the appearance of being inconsistent
with God's supremacy over it, is what is called by the Arminians
its self-determining power ; and yet I doubt if there are suffi-
ciently clear and certain reasons for denying even this view of
the freedom of the will, upon the mere ground that, if the will
possess this self-determining power, it would be impossible for
God to exercise absolute control over its operations. But if this
cannot be clearly and certainly made out, still less can it be
proved, on the other hand, that any agency which Calvinists
ascribe to God in renewing the will, is inconsistent with a full
regard to its true nature and essential properties, — to anything
that can be shown to attach to it.

416 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

It is, of course, no objection to the Calvinistic doctrine of ^
efficacious, insuperable grace in conversion, — though some of the ■
more Pelagian Arminians have sometimes represented it in that
light, — that it deprives men of everything like merit or ground of
boasting in repenting and believing. If it did not do so, it would
not be the doctrine of the sacred Scriptures ; and one great ob-
jection to the Arminian doctrine, — that men, even when a divine
power amply sufficient to produce in them faith and regeneration,
has been put forth, may still overcome and frustrate the exercise
of this power, and continue unconverted, — is just this, that this
doctrine, with whatever general professions about man's depravity
and moral impotency by nature, and about the necessity of the
gracious operation of the Spirit in producing conversion, it may
be accompanied, practically assigns to men themselves, and not
to God, the regulating or determining power in the matter, — the
power by which, in each case, it is settled that repentance and
conversion shall take place, — that is, that a man shall be put in
actual possession of all spiritual blessings, and finally of the king-
dom of heaven.

The difficulty is much more serious that is founded upon
the case of those who are not converted, though they have the
gospel offers and invitations addressed to them ; or, when the
special distinguishing efficacious grace of God is not put forth,
who continue in their sins, and finally perish. The difficulty, of
course, is to reconcile their responsibility for their impenitence
and unbelief, — their guilt and just liability to punishment on this
account, — with the views which have been explained as to the way
and manner in which the conversion of those who are converted
is effected. This is virtually the great difficulty which is com-
monly urged against the whole Calvinistic scheme of theology ; it
is usually discussed in connection with the subject of predestina-
tion. To the examination of that subject we must now proceed ;
and under that head we will have to advert to the considerations
by which this difficulty has been usually met and disposed of.

Sec. 7. — The Decrees of God.

Having been led to enter upon the consideration of the Arminian
controversy by an examination of the extent of the atonement,
— because it was most natural and convenient to finish, without

Sec. VII.] THE DECKEES OF GOD. 417

turning aside to any otiier topic, the subject of the atonement,
which we had been examining as an important department of the
Socinian controversy, — we endeavoured to improve this order in
the arrangement of the topics, for the purpose of bringing out more
fully the important principle, that right scriptural views of the
true nature and immediate bearing and effects of the atonement
are sufficient to settle the question of its extent ; and of showing
also that the doctrine of a limited destination of the atonement —
which is commonly reckoned the weakest part of the Calvinistic
system — is quite able to stand upon its own distinct and appro-
priate evidence, without being dependent, for the proof of its
truth, merely upon the connection subsisting between it and the
other doctrines of the system. Having, in this way, been led to
advert to the connection subsisting between the impetration and
the application of the blessings of redemption, — to the connection
subsisting between the sufferings and death of Christ, and not
merely reconciliation, pardon, and acceptance (the blessings which
involve or imply a change in men's state in relation to God
and His law), but also those blessings which involve or imply a
change in their character, and prepare them for the enjoyment
of God, — we have further thought it best, in proceeding with the
examination of the Arminian controversy, to finish the subject of
the application of the blessings of redemption, or the investiga-
tion of what it is that God does in bestowing upon men indivi-
dually the blessings which Christ purchased for them. Accord-
ingly we have explained the doctrine of our standards in regard
to the work of the Spirit in effectual calling, — the doctrine of
special, distinguishing, efficacious, insuperable grace in the pro-
duction of faith, and regeneration, wherever they are produced, —
as opposed to the Arminian doctrine of universal vocation, accom-
panied by the bestowal upon all of grace sufficient to produce
faith and regeneration. The connection of the topics, as form-
ing part of the development of a great scheme for securing the
salvation of sinners, has thus been preserved; and some other
collateral advantages, arising from the order we have been led
to adopt, may appear in the course of the investigation of the
subject of predestination, which we have hitherto reserved, but
on which we must now enter.

We have now to consider the important and difficult topic of
predestination, which formed the subject of the first of the five

3 — VOL. II. 2 D

418 THE AEMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

points in tlie original discussions between Calvinists and Armi-
nians, about the time of the Synod of Dort, and in connection
with which are usually considered most of those general topics
that bear upon all the leading doctrines in regard to which the
Calvinistic and Arminian systems of theology differ from each
other. The consideration of this great doctrine runs up into
the most profound and inaccessible subjects that can occupy the
minds of men, — the nature and attributes, the purposes and the,
actings of the infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah, — viewed!
especially in their bearing upon the everlasting destinies of His
intelligent creatures. The peculiar nature of the subject cer-
tainly demands, in right reason, that it should ever be approached
and considered with the profoundest humility, caution, and rever-
ence, as it brings us into contact, on the one side, with a subject
so inaccessible to our full comprehension as the eternal purposes
of the divine mind; and, on the other, with a subject so awful and M
overwhelming as the everlasting misery of an innumerable mul- '
titude of our fellow-men. Many men have discussed the subject
in this spirit, but many also have indulged in much presumptuous
and irreverent speculation regarding it. There is probably no
subject that has occupied more of the attention of intelligent men
in every age. It has been most fully discussed in all its bear-
ings, philosophical, theological, and practical ; and if there be any
subject of speculation with respect to which we are warranted in
saying that it has been exhausted, it is this.

Some, at least, of the topics comprehended under this general
head have been discussed by almost every philosopher of eminence
in ancient as well as in modern times ; and it is to this day a
standing topic of reproach against Calvinists, that they teach the
same doctrines as the ancient Stoics about fate and necessity.
The subject was largely discussed in the church in the fifth and
sixth centuries, in connection with the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian ,
controversies. It exercised most fully the subtilty of the schoolmen,
many of whom held sounder views upon this subject than might
have been expected from the general character and tendency, in
other respects, of the theology that then generally prevailed, — a fact
which, it appears to me, may be fairly regarded as affording a pre-
sumption that Calvinistic doctrines upon this subject are the only
ones that can really stand a thorough investigation, even upon phi-
losophical grounds, or as mere subjects of intellectual speculation.

Sec. VII.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 419

The subject was not much discussed at the era of the Reformation,
for the Reformers were of one mind concerning it ; and the Ro-
manists did not then openly and formally deny the doctrine which
the Reformers taught upon this point, — though they laboured to
excite a prejudice against the Reformed doctrine, as making God
the author of sin. Protestants, however, soon differed upon this
and cognate questions ; and it has ever since formed a prominent
feature in a large proportion of theological discussions. All that
the highest human ability, ingenuity, and acuteness can effect, has
been brought to bear upon the discussion of this subject ; but the
difficulties attaching to it have never been fully solved, and we are
well warranted in saying that they never will, unless God give us
either a fuller revelation or greatly enlarged capacities, — although,
perhaps, it would be more correct to say that, from the very nature
of the case, a finite being never can fully comprehend it, since this
would imply that he could fully comprehend the infinite mind.

It is not practicable, and it would not be at all profitable, to
enter at any length into the intricacies of this subject, — into the
innumerable speculations which have been put forth concerning
it. Here, as in regard to most subjects, the topics which it is
most important for us clearly to apprehend and to remember,
are just the plainest, the most obvious and palpable, views of the
question ; and to these, therefore, we will confine our attention.

The subject may be said, in general, to embrace the investi-
gation of the plan which God has formed for administering the
government of the world, and especially of His rational creatures,
and more particularly for regulating the actions and determining
the everlasting destinies of man. The materials to be employed
in the investigation are, generally, the knowledge we may possess
concerning God's attributes, character, and ways, — especially any
knowledge which He may have Himself directly communicated
to us upon these subjects ; and the survey of what He actually
has done and is doing in the government of the world, — viewed
in the light of His word, or in connection with any information
He may have given us, as to the principle that regulates His pro-
cedure. The subject embraces the investigation of such ques-
tions as these : Has God formed a plan for governing the world,
— for regulating or controlling the actions, and determining the
fate, of His rational creatures'? If so, when was this plan formed,
what are the principles on which it was formed, and the qualities

420 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

that attach to it ? W^hat provision has He made for carrying it
into execution, and what are the principles that regulate the exe-
cution of it, and determine its results ? Thus wide and various,
thus profound and incomprehensible, are the topics involved in the
investigation of this subject ; and the slightest reference to their
general nature and import should impress upon us the necessity of
proceeding in the investigation with the profoundest reverence and
caution, — of abandoning all confidence in our own discoveries and
speculations, — and of submitting our understandings implicitly to
anything which God may have revealed to us concerning it.

Let us, first, advert to the meaning and ordinary application
of some of the principal terms usually employed in connection
with this subject, and then to the settlement of the state of the
question as a topic of controversial discussion. The principal
terms employed in describing and discussing this subject are
these, — the decrees of God, predestination, election, and reproba-
tion. " The decrees of God " is the widest and most comprehen-
sive of these terms, and describes generally the purposes or reso-
lutions which God has formed, and in accordance with which He
regulates His own procedure, or orders whatever comes to pass in
the government of the world. That God has, and must have,
formed decrees — that is, purposes or resolutions — for the regulation
of His own procedure, must be admitted by all who regard Him as
possessed of intelligence and wisdom ; and the disputes which have
been raised upon this subject, respect not the existence of the
divine decrees, but the foundation on which they rest, — the proper-
ties which attach to them, — and the objects which they embrace.

Predestination, or fore-ordination, is sometimes used in so wide
a sense, as to comprehend the whole decrees or purposes of God,
— the whole plan which He has formed, — including all the resolu-
tions He has adopted for the regulation of the government of the ;
world ; and sometimes it is used in a more limited sense, as in-
cluding only His decrees or purposes with respect to the ultimate
destinies of men, as distinguished from the other departments of
His government. It is sometimes used in a still more limited
sense, as synonymous with election, or that department of God's
decrees or purposes which respects the salvation of those men who
are saved, without including reprobation. Election, of course,
describes God's decree or purpose to choose some men out of the
human race to be saved, and at length to save them ; while repro-

Sec. VII.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 421

bation is generally used by theologians to describe the decrees or
purposes of God, whatever these may be, in regard to those of
the human race who ultimately perish.

Little more can be said in the explanation of these terms,
M'ithout entering into topics which belong rather to the state of
the question ; but before proceeding to this, we may make a
remark or two in illustration of the phraseology employed upon
this subject in the standards of our church. The general title
of the chapter in the Confession where this subject is stated —
the third — is, " Of God's Eternal Decree ; " and under this head
is embodied a statement of the leading truths taught in Scripture
concerning the whole plan and purposes formed by God from
eternity, and executed in time, in governing the world, and in
determining the everlasting destiny of all His creatures. God's
decree, made from eternity, is represented as comprehending
everything that takes place in time, so that He has ordained
whatsoever comes to pass. In proceeding to state the substance of
what is taught in Scripture as to God's decree or eternal purpose,
with respect to the destiny of His intelligent creatures, the Confes-
sion represents men and angels as equally included in the decree ;
while it uses a different phraseology in describing the bearing of
the decree upon those of them whose ultimate destiny is life or
happiness, from what is employed in regard to those of them whose
ultimate destiny is death or misery. The result, in both cases,
takes place, with respect to angels and to men, by virtue of God's
decree; but one class, — the saved, — both angels and men, are said
to be " predestinated " by the decree to life, while the other class
are said to be " fore-ordained " by the decree to death. The state-
ment is this : * " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of
His glory " (the whole sentence being under the regimen of this
important clause), " some men and angels are predestinated unto
everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death ; "
and that the substitution of the word " fore-ordained " for " pre-
destinated " was intentional, and designed to mark a distinction in
the two cases, is evident from the words which immediately follow
in the fourth section, where, resuming the whole subject, without
reference to the different results of life and death, but stating
a point common to both, it introduces hotlt words, in order to

* C. iii. sec. iii.

422 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

include both classes, in this way : " These angels and men, thus
predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably
designed." It can scarcely be said that, either etymologically
or according to the general usage of theologians, there is any
difference of meaning between the words " predestinated " and
" fore-ordained ; " but Calvinists, in general, have held that there
is an important difference between the way and manner in which
the decree of election bears or operates upon the condition and
fate of those who are saved, and that in which the decree of
reprobation, as it is often called, bears or operates upon the con-
dition of those who perish ; and the existence of this difference,
though without any exact specification of its nature, the compilers
of our Confession seem to have intended to indicate, by restricting
the word " predestinate " to the elect, the saved ; and using the
word " fore-ordained " in regard to the rest. The Confession does
not make use of the word "reprobation," which is commonly
employed by theologians upon this subject ; and the reason of this
undoubtedly was, that it is an expression very liable to be mis-
understood and perverted, and thus to excite a prejudice against
the truth which Calvinistic theologians intend to convey by it.
The Confession further says, that " those men who are predesti-
nated unto life, God . . . hath from eternity also chosen or
elected in Christ unto everlasting glory ; " that " God hath ap-
pointed the elect unto glory," and has also, " by the eternal and
most free purpose of His will, fore-ordained all the means there-
unto ; " * — so that they certainly and infallibly attain to eternal
life, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme which God
has devised for the salvation of sinners. Though the Confession
does not use the word " reprobation," and does not apply the
word "predestinate" to those who perish, it teaches explicitly,
that, by the decree of God, some men are fore-ordained to ever-
lasting death ; and the further explanation given of this subject
is,f that " the rest of mankind " — that is, all those not predesti-
nated unto everlasting life, not chosen or elected in Christ —
" God was pleased ... to pass by, and to ordain them to dis-
honour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious
justice," — these expressions being descriptive of two distinct acts,
which Calvinistic theologians usually regard as included in wdiat is

* Sees. V. vi. t Sec. vii.

Sec. VIL] THE DECREES OF GOD. 423

commonly called the decree of reprobation, — namely, first, prce-
teritio, or passing by, which is an act of sovereignty ; and, secondly,
prcedamnatio, which is a judicial act, described in the Confession
as " ordaining them to dishonour and wrath for their sin."

The views generally entertained by Calvinists upon this sub-
ject have been, in some measure, indicated by the explanations
we have given of the statements of the Confession. But it will
be proper to explain them somewhat more fully, and to compare
our doctrine with that of the Arminians, that we may bring out
exactly the state of the question. The whole controversy may
be said to be involved in the settlement of the question as to the
nature and properties of the divine decrees.

The doctrine generally held by Calvinists upon this subject is
— as the Confession says — that God, from all eternity, did freely
and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, — that is, that
He has eternally formed, and does in time execute, a plan for the
government of the world, including in it all actions and events ; so
that every event that takes place comes to pass as God had from
all eternity purposed and arranged that it should come to pass, and
because He had so purposed and arranged. If this doctrine about
the divine decrees, in general, be well founded, it determines the
whole question about election and reprobation, which are included
under the decrees. If the ordinary actions of men are fore-ordained
by God, of course their ultimate fate or destiny must also, in every
instance, have been determined. The Arminians generally hold
that God only foresees all the events and actions that take place,
but deny that He fore-ordained them. They admit that He exerted
some kind or degree of efficiency in actually bringing them about ;
but deny that, in doing so. He was carrying into effect, in each
case, a purpose which He had formed from eternity, and which He
had resolved to execute ; or that it was His agency that exerted any
determining influence in causing them to come to pass. On this
subject, the controversy, as usually conducted, is made to turn
principally upon what are called the properties or qualities of the
divine decrees ; for that God, in some sense, did make decrees, or
form purposes, in regard to the way in which He would govern
the world, is not disputed, except by Socinians, who deny that He
could even foresee future contingent events, which were, in any
sense, dependent upon the volitions of responsible beings. And
the chief questions usually discussed with reference to the general

424 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

properties of the divine decrees are these two : — First, Are they
conditional or not? Secondly, Are they unchangeable or not?

It seems pretty plain, that if they are conditional and change-
able, as the Arminians hold, they cannot, in any proper sense, be
the decrees or purposes of a Beipg of infinite power, knowledge,
and wisdom ; in other words, the Arminian doctrine amounts to
a virtual denial of the existence of divine decrees, in any proper
sense of the word. If God has formed plans and purposes with
regard to the actual administration of the whole government of
the world, and the regulation of man's actions and fate, — and if
these plans or purposes were not conditional and changeable, —
that is, if they were not left dependent for their execution upon
what creatures might do, independently of God, and liable to be
changed or altered, according to the manner in which these crea-
tures might choose to act, — and all this seems to be necessarily
involved in all that we know concerning the divine perfections,
both from reason and Scripture, — then the substance of all this
truth is just expressed in the doctrine taught in our Confession,
that " God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy
counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatso-
ever comes to pass."

The foundations of this great doctrine are these : — that unless
God left the world, and all the creatures whom He had formed,
to rule and govern themselves, altogether independently of Him,
He must, from eternity, have formed plans and purposes for regu-
lating its affairs, — for determining and controlling their actions, —
that these plans and purposes could not be conditional and change-
able,— that is, left to be dependent upon the volitions of creatures,
and liable to be changed, according to the nature and results of
these volitions, — but must have been formed in the exercise of His
infinite knowledge, and all His other infinite perfections, and must
therefore certainly and infallibly be in time carried into full effect.
These are the topics usually discussed under the head " De Decretis
Dei," taken in its widest sense ; and it is manifest, as we formerly
remarked, that if the Calvinistic doctrine upon this great general
question be established, this settles all the questions bearing upon
the subjects of election and reprobation, or the purposes and act-
ings of God with respect to the character and fate of men indivi-
dually. If God has unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes
to pass, and if, in point of fact, some men are saved and the rest

Sec. VII.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 425

perish, then it must be true that He has predestinated some men
to everlasting hfe, and has fore-ordained others to everlasting death.

It is, however, upon the field of this latter and more limited
question that the controversy has been chiefly conducted ; and
there is no doubt that there are more full and abundant materials
furnished to us in Scripture upon this more limited topic, than
upon the wider and more comprehensive one of the divine decrees
in general, in their bearing upon whatsoever comes to pass. We
have seen, in the Confession, what is the doctrine held by Calvin-
ists upon this subject. It is in substance this, — that from all
eternity God chose or elected some men — certain definite per-
sons of the human race — to everlasting life ; that He decreed or
determined, certainly and infallibly, and not conditionally and
mutably, to bring those persons to salvation by a Redeemer ; that
in making this selection of some men, and in decreeing to save
them^ He was not influenced or determined by anything existing
in them, or foreseen in them, — such as faith or good works, — by
which they were distinguished from other men, or by anything
out of Himself, by any reason known to us, or comprehensible by
us ; and that this eternal purpose or decree He certainly and in-
fallibly executes, in regard to each and every one included under
it ; while all the rest of men not thus elected He decreed to pass
by, — to leave in their natural state of sin and misery, and finally
to punish eternally for their sin.

The Arminians, on the contrary, hold that God made no
decree — formed no purpose — bearing immediately upon the sal-
vation of men, except this general one, that He would save and
admit to heaven all who should in fact repent and believe, and
that He would condemn and consign to punishment all who
should continue impenitent and unbelieving. God having formed
this general purpose, and announced it to men, and having sent
His Son into the w^orld to remove the obstacles that stood in the
way of their salvation, virtually left it to men themselves to com-
ply or not with the terms or conditions He had prescribed, having
no purpose to exercise, and of course not in fact exercising, any
determining influence upon the result in any case.

Some Arminians profess to believe that God has made, from
eternity, fixed and unchangeable decrees, with respect to the eter-
nal condition of men individually. But those of them who, in
accommodation to the language of Scripture, choose to adopt this

426 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

mode of expressing their statements, do not, in reality, hold any-
thing different from the rest ; for they make the sole ground or
foundation of these decrees or purposes, in regard to the salvation
of individuals, God's foreknowledge of the faith and repentance
of some, and of the unbelief and impenitence of others. All that
is implied in the election of a particular individual to life is, that
God foresees that that individual will repent and believe ; and
that, on this ground, this being the cause or condition moving
Him thereto, God decrees or purposes to admit him to heaven,
and to give him everlasting life, — the result being thus deter-
mined by the man Himself ; and God's decree, with respect to
his salvation, being nothing more than a recognition of him as
one who would, without God's efficacious determining interposi-
tion, comply with the conditions announced to him. This being
all that any Arminians do, or can, admit, as to the bearing or
import of any decree or purpose of God, upon the salvation of
men individually, those Arminians act much the more manly
and consistent part, who deny altogether any decree or purpose
of God, with respect to the salvation of men individually.

The fundamental position of the Arminians, at the time of
the Synod of Dort, was, that the only and lohole decree of elec-
tion consisted in this, that God had formed a general purpose or
determination, that all who should repent and believe w^ould be
saved, and that all who should continue impenitent and unbeliev-
ing would be condemned, without any reference whatever to indi-
viduals, except the bare foresight or foreknowledge of what would
be, in fact, the result in the case of each person. A decree or
purpose, based or founded solely upon the foreknowledge or fore-
sight of the faith and obedience of individuals, is of course the
same thing as the entire want or non-existence of any purpose or
decree in regard to them. It determines nothing concerning
them, — bestows nothing upon them, — secures nothing to them.
It is a mere word or name, the use of which only tends to involve
the subject in obscurity and confusion ; whereas, upon Calvinistic
principles, God's electing decree, in choosing some men to life, is
the effectual source, or determining cause, of the faith and holi-
ness which are ultimately wrought in them, and of the eternal
happiness to which they at last attain. God elects certain men to
life, not because He foresees that they will repent, and believe,
and persevere in faith and holiness, but for reasons, no doubt, fully

Sec. VII.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 427

accordant with His wisdom and justice, though wholly unknown
to us, and certainly not based upon anything foreseen in them, as
distinguished from other men ; and then further decrees to give
to those men, in due time, everything necessary, in order to their
being admitted to the enjoyment of eternal life, in accordance
with the provisions of the scheme which His wisdom has devised
for saving sinners.

The Arminians do not well know how to explain the source
of the faith and holiness by which some men come to be distin-
guished, and to be prepared for heaven. They do not venture, as
the Socinians do, to exclude God's agency wholly from the pro-
duction of them ; and they can scarcely deny, that whatever God
does in the production of them, He decreed or resolved to do, and
decreed and resolved to do it from eternity ; and on this account,
as well as for other reasons, they are much fonder of dwelling
upon reprobation than election ; because they think that, in re-
gard to the former subject, they can make out a more plausible
case than with respect to the latter, if not in defending their own
views, at least in assailing those of the Calvinists. The Arminians
at the Synod of Dort wished to begin, under the first article, with
discussing the subject of reprobation, and complained of it as
injustice, when the Synod refused to concede this demand.* The
demand was obviously unreasonable ; it did not, and could not,
spring from an honest love of truth, and it was not fitted to pro-
mote the cause of truth ; and yet this has been substantially,
though not in form, the course generally adopted by Arminians,
in stating and discussing this subject. They usually endeavour
to excite a prejudice against the doctrine of reprobation, or God's
decree or purpose with relation to those who ultimately perish,
often by distorting and misrepresenting the views held by Cal-
vinists upon this subject ; and then, after having produced all
they can allege against this doctrine, they argue that, as there is
no such thing as reprobation, so neither can there be any such
thing as election.

Calvinists, on the contrary, usually produce first the evidence
for the doctrine of election, and then show that, this doctrine
being once established, all that they hold on the subject of repro-
bation follows as a matter of course. They do not indeed regard

* See The Reformers, and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 538, etc. — Edrs.

428

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

the doctrine of reprobation as wholly dependent for its evidence
upon the doctrine of election ; for they believe that the doctrine
of reprobation has its own distinct scriptural proof ; but they I
think that the proof of the doctrine of election is quite sufficient !
to establish all they hold on the subject of reprobation, and that
there are much fuller materials in Scripture bearing upon the
former subject than upon the latter. It is this last consideration
that establishes the utter unfairness of the course usually pursued
by the Arminians, in giving priority and superior prominence to
the discussion of the doctrine of reprobation. As the Scriptures
give us much more inforaiation as to what God does in producing
faith and regeneration in those who believe and are converted,
than as to His mode of procedure in regard to those who are left
in impenitence and unbelief, so it tells us much more with respect
to His decrees and purposes with regard to those who are saved, |
than with regard to those who perish ; and if so, we ought, in our
investigations into the subject, to begin with the former, and not
with the latter, and to endeavour to form our opinion of what is
less clearly revealed in Scripture by what is more plainly declared.
Calvinists do not shrink from discussing the subject of reproba-
tion, though, from its awful character, they have no satisfaction
in dwelling upon it, and feel deeply the propriety of being pecu-
liarly careful here not to attempt to be wise above what is written.
They do not hesitate to admit that it is necessarily involved in,
or deducible from, the doctrine of election ;* and they think they
can fully prove and defend all that they really hold regarding it.
"What they hold upon this subject is this, — that God decreed, or
purposed, to do from eternity what He actually does in time, in
regard to those who perish, as well as in regard to those who are
saved ; and this is, in substance, to withhold from them, or to
abstain from communicating to them, those gracious and insuper-
able influences of His Spirit, by which alone faith and regene-
ration can be produced, — to leave them in their natural state of
sin, and then to inflict upon them the punishment which, by their
sin, they have deserved.

Some Calvinists have been disposed to go to the other extreme

* " De Reprobatione nos non sumus
admoduni solliciti, nisi quatenus con-
scquitur ex Electione. Positiva autem
reprobatio ad exitium, sine considera-

tione ullius inobedientiae, non sequitnr j
ex Electionis doctrina." — Amesii.4.«ft'"
synodalia Scripta, p. 37.

Sec. VIL] THE DECREES OF GOD. 429

from that which we have just exposed on the part of the Armi-
nians. The Arminian extreme is to press reprobation, as a topic
of discussion, into undue and unfair prominence ; the other is, to
throw it too much out of sight. Those to whom we now refer,
are disposed to assert God's eternal, unconditional, and unchange-
able decree or purpose, electing some men to everlasting life, and
effecting and ensuring their salvation ; but to omit all mention of
His decrees or purposes in regard to those who ultimately perish.
This is the course adopted in the seventeenth article of the Church
of England, where the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination to life
is set forth so plainly, that it is strange that men could have per-
suaded themselves that the article fairly admits of an Arminian
sense, but where nothing is said of what theologians have been
accustomed to discuss under the head of reprobation. Whatever
respect may be entertained for the motives in which such an omis-
sion originates, or for the general character of some of the men
who are influenced by them, the omission itself is unwarranted.
Every one who adopts the Calvinistic interpretation of those
passages of Scripture on which the doctrine of election to life
is founded, must admit that there are indications in Scripture —
though certainly neither so full nor so numerous — of God's decrees
or purposes with respect to those who perish, as well as with respect
to those who are saved. And unless men deliberately refuse to
follow out their principles to their legitimate consequences, they
cannot dispute that the election of some men necessarily implies a
corresponding pretention, or passing by, of the rest. And though
there is certainly no subject where the obligation to keep within
the limits of what is revealed is more imperative, and none that
ought to be stated and discussed under a deeper feeling of rever-
ence and holy awe, yet there is no reason why, upon this, any
more than other subjects, we should not ascertain and bring out
all that " is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good
and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." *

In stating and discussing the question with respect to reproba-
tion, Calvinists are careful to distinguish between the two different
acts formerly referred to, decreed or resolved upon by God from
eternity, and executed by Him in time, — the one negative and the
other positive, — the one sovereign and the other judicial. The

* Confession, c. i. sec. vi.

430 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

first, which they call non-election, preterition, or passing by, is
simply decreeing to leave — and in consequence, leaving — men in
their natural state of sin, — to withhold from them, or to abstain
from conferring upon them, those special, supernatural, gracioi
influences, which are necessary to enable them to repent and H
lieve ; so that the result is, that they continue in their sin, with the
guilt of their transgression upon their head. The second — the
positive judicial act — is more properly that which is called, in our
Confession, " fore-ordaining to everlasting death," and " ordaining
those who have been passed by to dishonour and wrath for their
sin." God ordains none to wrath or punishment, except on
account of their sin, and makes no decree to subject them to
punishment which is not founded on, and has reference to, their
sin, as a thing certain and contemplated. But the first, or nega-
tive, act of preterition, or passing by, is not founded upon their sin,
and perseverance in it, as foreseen. Were sin foreseen the proper
ground or cause of the act of preterition or passing by, preteri-
tion must have been the fate equally of all men, for all have
sinned, and of course were foreseen as sinners. It is not alleged
that those who are not elected, or who are passed by, have been
always greater sinners than those who have been chosen and
brought to eternal life. And with respect to the idea that final
impenitence or unbelief foreseen might be the ground or cause
of the first act of preterition, as distinguished from fore-ordination
to wrath because of sin, this Calvinists regard as plainly inconsistent
with the scriptural statements, which ascribe the production of faith
and regeneration, and perseverance in faith and holiness, solely
to the good pleasure of God and the efficacious operation of His
Spirit, and with the intimations which Scripture also gives, that
there is something about God's decrees and purposes, even in regard
to those who perish, which can be resolved only into His own
good pleasure, — into the most wise and holy counsel of His will.

Sec. 8. — Predestination — State of the Question.

From the account which we have given of the state of the
question, in the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians,
upon the subject of the divine decrees, it must be evident that there
are just two theories which can be maintained upon this matter ;
and that all men who are able to understand the question, and

Sec. VIII.] PREDESTINATION— STATE OP THE QUESTION. 431

who have formed any fixed opinion regarding it, must be either
Calvinists or Arminians ; while it is also manifest that Calvinists
cannot, on any point of very material importance, differ among
themselves. It is, I think, of great importance, in order to our
having clear and definite conceptions upon this subject, and in
order to our being prepared to thread our way, most safely and
successfully, through the intricacies of this controversy, that we
should see clearly that there are just two alternatives, and no
medium between them, and that we should firmly and distinctly
apprehend what these two alternatives are.

It will be seen, from what has been said, that the course which
fairness, and an impartial love of truth, obviously dictate in the
investigation of this subject, is to seek to ascertain, in the first place,
what we should believe as to what God has decreed from eternity,
and does or effects in time, with respect to the salvatiod of those
who are saved : and tlien consider what information we have as to
His purposes and actings with respect to the ultimate destiny of
those who perish. As much fuller information is given us, in
Scripture, in regard to the former than the latter of these sub-
jects, the course which right reason dictates is, — that we should
first investigate the subject of election, and then consider whether
there be anything revealed or established, in regard to reprobation,
or God's decrees or purposes with respect to those who perish,
which should confirm, or overthow, or modify the opinions we
have formed on the subject of election, — that, in short, in the
primary and fundamental investigation of the subject, we should
have in view only the case of those who are saved, — the sources
or causes to which this result is to be traced, — the principles by
which it is to be explained, — the provision made for effecting it,
— and the way in which this provision is brought into operation.

The substance of the Calvinistic doctrine is : — that God, from
eternity, chose, or elected, certain men to everlasting life ; and
resolved, certainly and infallibly, to effect the salvation of these
men, in accordance with the provisions of a great scheme which
He had devised for this purpose, — a scheme without which no
sinners could have been saved ; and that, in making this selection
of these individuals, who were to be certainly saved. He was not
influenced or determined by the foresight or foreknowledge, that
they, as distinguished from others, would repent and believe,
and would persevere to the end in faith and holiness ; but that,

432 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXV.

on the contrary, their faith and conversion, their holiness and
perseverance, are to be traced to His election of them, and to the
effectual provision He has made for executing His electing pur-
pose or decree, as their true and only source, — they being chosen
absolutely and unconditionally to salvation ; and chosen also to
faith, regeneration, and perseverance, as the necessary means, and,
in some sense, conditions, of salvation. Now, if this doctrine be
denied, it is plain enough that the view which must be taken of.
the various points involved in the statement of it, is in substance
this: — that God does not make from eternity any selection of some
men from among the human race, whom He resolves and deter-
mines to save ; that of course He never puts in operation any
means that are fitted, and intended, to secure the salvation of
those who are saved, as distinguished from others ; and that, con-
sequently, their faith and regeneration, with which salvation is
inseparably connected, are not the gifts of God, effected by His
agency, but are wrought by themselves, in the exercise of their own
powers and capacities. On this theory, it is impossible that God
could have decreed or purposed the conversion and salvation of
those who are saved, any more than of those who perish. And the
only way in which their salvation, individually, could have come
under God's cognizance, is that merely of its being foreseen as
a fact future, — which would certainly take place — though He
neither decreed nor caused it, — their own acts in repenting and
believing, and persevering in faith and obedience, simply fore-
seen as future, being the cause, or ground, or determining prin-
ciple of any acts which God either did or could pass in regard to
them, individually, as distinguished from the rest of their fellow-
men. This brings out the true, real, and only possible alternative
in the case ; and it is just in substance this : whether God is the
true author and cause of the salvation of those who are saved ?
or whether this result is to be ascribed, in each case, to men
themselves? Calvinistic and Arminian writers have displayed a
considerable variety in their mode of stating and discussing this
subject ; and Calvinists, as well as Arminians, have sometimes
imagined that they had fallen upon ideas and modes of state-
ment and representation, which threw some new light upon it, —
which tended to establish more firmly their own doctrine, or to
expose more successfully that of their opponents. But the prac-
tical result of all these ingenious speculations has always, upon

Sec. VIII.] PREDESTINATION— STATE OF THE QUESTION. 433

a full examination of the subject, turned out to be, that the
state of the question was found to be the same as before, — the
real alternative unchanged, — the substantial materials of proof
and argument unaltered; and the difficulties attaching to the
opposite doctrines as strong and perplexing as ever, amid all the
ingenious attempts made to modify their aspect, or to shift their
position.

The practical lesson to be derived from these considerations
— considerations that must have suggested themselves to every one
who has carefully surveyed this controversy — is, that the great
object we ought to aim at, in directing our attention to the study
of it, is this : to form a clear and distinct apprehension of the real
nature of the leading point in dispute, — of the true import and
bearing of the only alternatives that can be maintained with
regard to it ; to familiarize our minds with definite conceptions
of the meaning and evidence of the principal arguments by which
the truth upon the subject may be established, and of the lead-
ing principles applicable to the difficulties with which the doctrine
we have embraced as true may be assailed ; and then to seek to
make a right and judicious application of it, according to its true
nature, tendency, and bearing, without allowing ourselves to be
dragged into endless and unprofitable speculations, in regard to its
deeper mysteries or more intricate perplexities, or to be harassed
by perpetual doubt and difficulty.

The same cause which has produced the result of there being
really just two opposite alternatives on this important subject, and
of the consequent necessity of all men who study it, taking either
the Calvinlstic or the Arminian side in the controversy, has also
produced the result, that Calvinists and Arminians have not
differed very materially among themselves, respectively, as to the
substance of what they held and taught upon the subject. I have
referred to the many attempts that have been made to devise new
solutions of the difficulties attaching to the opposite theories ; but
these have not, in general, affected the mode of stating and ex-
pounding the theories themselves. The same ingenuity has been
often exerted in trying to devise new arguments, or to put the
old arguments in a new and more satisfactory light ; but, so far
from affecting the state of the question, these attempts have
scarcely ever produced any substantial variety, even in the argu-
ments themselves.

3 — VOL. II. 2 E

434 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV. ,

The Socinians generally, upon tins subject, agree with th&
Arminians, — that is, they agree with them in rejecting the Cal-
vinistic doctrine of predestination. W^hile, however, these two
parties agree with each other in what they hold and teach upon
the subject, there is one important point, in the mode in which
they conduct the argument against Calvinism, where there is a
difference, which it may be worth while to notice. The Socinians,
as we formerly had occasion to explain, deny that God does or
can foresee, certainly and infallibly, future contingent events, —
such as the future actions of men, dependent upon their volitions ;
and I formerly had occasion to mention the curious and interest-
ing fact, that some of them have been bold enough and honest
enough to acknowledge that the reason which induced them to
deny God's certain foreknowledge of the future actions of men,
was, that if this were admitted, it was impossible to disprove, or
to refuse to concede, the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.
The Arminians have not, in general, denied God's certain fore-
knowledge of all future events, though some of them have made
it very manifest — as I may perhaps afterwards show — that they
would very willingly deny it if they could ; but, not denying it,
they have, in consequence, been obliged to try to show, though
without success, that this admission is not fatal, as Socinians
acknowledge it to be, to anti-Calvinistic views upon the subject
of predestination ; while the Socinians, with greater boldness and
consistency, cut the knot which they felt themselves unable to
untie. These differences, however, do not affect the substance of
what is maintained on either side of the question ; and accordingly
we concede to the anti-Calvinists, that they are all, in the main,
of one mind as to the substance of what they teach upon the sub-
ject of predestination, though they differ considerably as to the
arguments by which their doctrine should be defended. Indeed,
we reckon it a point of some importance, to make it palpable that
there is really but one alternative to Calvinism, — one doctrine that
can be held upon this subject, if that of the Calvinists be denied.
But they scarcely make the same concession to us ; at least they
usually endeavour to excite a prejudice against Calvinism, by
dwelling much upon, and exaggerating, a difference connected
with this matter, that has been discussed, and occasionally with
some keenness, among Calvinists themselves. I allude to the
dispute between the Supralapsarians and the Sublapsarians.

Sec. VIII.] PREDESTINATION— STATE OF THE QUESTION. 435

There have been two or three eminent Calvinists, especially
among the supralapsarians, who have contended with considerable
earnestness upon this subject, as if it were a vital point, — par-
ticularly Gomarus, the colleague and opponent of Arminius ; and
Twisse, the prolocutor or president of the Westminster Assembly ;
but Calvinists, in general, have not reckoned it a controversy
of much importance. Indeed, it will be found that the subject
is much more frequently spoken of by Arminians than by Cal-
vinists, just because, as I have said, they usually endeavour to
improve it, as a means of exciting a prejudice against Calvinism,
— first, by representing it as an important difference subsisting
among Calvinists, on which they are not able to come to an
agreement ; and, secondly, and more particularly, by giving pro-
minence to the supralapsarian view, as if it were the truest and
most consistent Calvinism, — this being the doctrine which is the
more likely of the two to come into collision with men's natural
feelings and impressions. I do not think it necessary to enter
into any exposition or discussion of these topics, because, in truth,
to give it much prominence, or to treat it as a matter of much
importance, is just to give some countenance to what is merely a
controversial artifice of our opponents. The state of the question
upon this point is very clearly explained, and the sublapsarian
view very ably defended, by Turretine, under the head "De
Praedestinationis objecto." * I will merely make a single remark,
to explain what will be found in the writings of theologians upon
the point. The question is usually put in this form : Whether
the object or the subject — for, in this case, these two words are
synonymous — of the decree of predestination, electing some and
passing by others, be man unfallen, or man fallen, — that is, whether
God, in the act of electing some to life, and passing by others,
contemplated men, or had them present to His mind, simply as
rational and responsible beings, whom He was to create, or re-
garded them as fallen into a state of sin and misery, from which
state He decreed to save some of them, and to abstain from
saving the rest. Those who hold the former view are supralap-
sarians ; and those who hold the latter are sublapsarians.

The difference between Calvinists upon this subject is not in
itself of any material importance ; and almost all judicious Cal-

* Turrettin., Loc. iv. Qu. ix.

436 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV

vinists in modern times have thought it unnecessary, if not un-
warrantable, to give any formal or explicit deliverance upon it ;
while they have usually adhered to the ordinary representations
of Scripture upon the subject, which are practically sublapsarian.
This is substantially the course adopted both in the canons of
the Synod of Dort and in our own Confession ; though there is,
perhaps, less in our Confession that would be distasteful to a
rigid supralapsarian, than in the canons of the Synod of Dort.
Sublapsarians all admit that God unchangeably fore-ordained the
fall of Adam, as well as everything else that comes to pass ; while
— in the words of our Confession — they deny that this principle
can be proved to involve the conclusion, that " God is the author
of sin ; that violence is offered to the will of the creatures ; or that
the liberty or contingency of second causes is taken away." And
supralapsarians all admit that God's eternal purposes were formed
upon a full and certain knowledge of all things possible as well
as actual, — that is, certainly future, — and in the exercise of 'all
His perfections of wisdom and justice, and, more especially, that
a respect to sin does come into consideration in predestination;
or, as Turretine expresses it, settling the true state of the ques-
tion upon this point, "in Prsedestinatione rationem peccati in
considerationem" venire . . . " ut nemo damnetur nisi propter
peccatum ; et nemo salvetur, nisi qui miser fuerit et perditus." *

The fall of the human race into a state of sin and misery in
Adam, is the basis and foundation of the scheme of truth revealed
in the sacred Scripture, — it is the basis and foundation of the
Calvinistic system of theology ; and in the truths plainly revealed
in Scripture as to the principles that determine and regulate the
provision by which some men are saved from this their natural
state of sin and misery, and the rest are left to perish in it, there
are, without entering into unwarranted and presumptuous specu-
lations, ample materials for enabling us to decide conclusively in
favour of Calvinism, and against Arminianism, on all the points
that are really involved in the controversy between them.f

If we are correct in this account of the state of the question
concerning predestination as controverted between Calvinists and
Arminians, it is evident that the real points in dispute are these :

*TutTettin., Loc. iv. Qu. ix. sec. vii. I in The Reformers, and the Theology of
t This topic is more fully illustrated | the Reformation, p. 368. — Edks.

Sec. VIII.] PREDESTINATION— STATE OF THE QUESTION. 437

Did God from eternity, in contemplating and arranging about
the everlasting condition of mankind, choose some men out of the
human race — that is, certain persons, individually and specifically
— to be, certainly and infallibly, partakers of eternal life ? or did
He merely choose certain qualities or properties, — faith, repent-
ance, holiness, and perseverance, — with a purpose of admitting to
heaven all those men, whoever they might be, that should possess
or exhibit these qualities, and to consign to punishment all those
who, after being favoured with suitable opportunities, should fail
to exhibit them ? This question really, and in substance, exhausts
the controversy ; and the second of these positions must be main-
tained by all anti-Calvinists. But as the Arminian differs from
the Socinian section of the anti-Calvinists, in admitting God's
foreknowledge of all events, — and, of course, in admitting that
God foresaw from eternity, and consequently had present to His
mind, though He did not fore-ordain, what would, in fact, be the
ultimate fate of each individual, — the controversy, as managed
with Arminian opponents, has more commonly assumed this
form : Was God's election of some men to everlasting life based
or founded only on His mere free grace and love, or upon their
faith, holiness, and perseverance, foreseen as future ? This is the
form in which the controversy is usually discussed with Arminians
who admit God's foreknowledge of all events ; but the question
in this form does not at all differ in substance from the preceding,
in which it applies equally to all anti-Calvinists, whether they
admit or deny foreknowledge. Of course an election founded
upon a foresight of the faith, holiness, and perseverance of par-
ticular persons is not an election at all, but a mere recognition
of the future existence of certain qualities found in certain men,
though God has neither produced, nor decreed to produce, them.
Accordingly, Arminians are accustomed to identify the election
of a particular individual with his faith or believing in Christ, as
if there was no antecedent act of God bearing upon him — his
character and condition — until he believed ; while others of them
— acting upon the same general idea, but following it out more
consistently by taking into account their own doctrine, that faith
is not necessarily connected with salvation, since believers may
fall away and finally perish — identify the time of God's decree of
election with the death of believers, as if then only their salvation
became by the event certain, or certainly known, while till that

438 THE AEMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

time nothing had been done to effect or secure it.* But a more
important question is, To what is it that men are chosen ? is it
merely to what is external and temporary, and not to what is
internal and everlasting?

It is common, in discussions upon this subject, to divide it
into two leading branches, — the first comprehending the investi-
gation of the object of election, or the discussion of the question,
whether God, in election, chooses particular men, or merely
general qualities ; and the second comprehending the investiga-
tion of the cause of election, or the discussion of the question,
whether God, in resolving to save some men, is influenced or
determined by a foresight of their faith, holiness, or perseverance,
or chooses them out of His mere good pleasure, — His free grace
and love, — and resolves, in consequence of having chosen them to
salvation, to give them faith, holiness, and perseverance. But,
from the explanations already given, it is manifest that these two
questions virtually resolve into one.

It has been common, also, in discussions upon this subject, to
give the supposed ipsissima verba of God's decree of election upon
the two opposite theories ; and though this, perhaps, savours of
presumption, as putting words into the mouth of God, it is fitted
to bring out the difference between them in a clear and impres-
sive light. Upon the Calvinistic theory, the decree of election,
or that which God decrees or declares in regard to a particular
individual, runs in this way : " I elect Peter, — or any particular
individual, definitely and by name, — I elect Peter to everlasting
life ; and in order that he may obtain everlasting life in the way
appointed, I will give him faith and holiness, and secure that he
shall persevere in them ;" whereas, upon the Arminian theory,
the decree of election must run in this way : " I elect to ever-
lasting life all those men who shall believe and persevere. I
foresee that Peter will believe and persevere, and therefore I
elect him to everlasting life."

But we have said enough upon the state of the question, and
must now proceed to make a few observations upon the leading
grounds on which the Calvinistic doctrine has been established,
and the objections by which it has been assailed.

* So the Remonstrants in tlieir Acta et Scripta SijuodnUa. Amesii Anti-
synod. Script, p. 11.

Sec. IX.] PREDESTINATION, AND DOCTRINE OF THE FALL. 439

Sec. 9. — Predestination^ and the Doctrine of the FalL

The evidence upon this, as upon most subjects of a similar
kind, is usually divided into two branches : first, that derived
from particular statements of Scripture which bear, or are alleged
to bear, directly and immediately upon the precise point in dispute ;
and, secondly, that derived from general principles taught in Scrip-
ture, or other doctrines revealed there, from which the one or the
other theory upon the subject of predestination may be alleged to
follow by necessary logical sequence. It holds true, to a large
extent, that the interpretation which men put upon particular
statements of Scripture is, in point of fact, determined by the
general conceptions they may have formed of the leading features
of the scheme of divine truth. It is dangerous to indulge the
habit of regulating our opinions upon divine truth chiefly in this
way, without a careful and exact investigation of the precise
meaning of particular statements of Scripture ; for we are very
apt to be mistaken in the views we form of the logical relations
of different doctrines to each other, and to be led, in attempting
to settle this, into presumptuous speculations in which we have
no solid foundation to rest upon. Still it cannot be disputed
that there is a complete and harmonious scheme of doctrine re-
vealed to us in Scripture, — that all its parts must be consistent
with each other, — and that it is our duty to trace out this consist-
ency, though we must be careful of making our distinct percep-
tion of the consistency of doctrines with each other the sole, or
even the principal, test of their truth individually.

We shall first advert to the arguments in favour of the Cal-
vinistic doctrine of predestination derived from other principles or
doctrines which are taught in Scripture, with which it seems to be
connected, or from which it may be probably or certainly deduced.

And here we are naturally led to advert, in the first place, to
the connection subsisting between the Calvinistic doctrine of pre-
destination to eternal life, and the doctrine of the fall of the human
race in Adam into an estate of sin and misery. With regard to
this point, Calvinists generally admit that the fall of mankind, or
of the whole human race, in Adam, is an essential part of their
scheme of predestination, in this restricted sense ; and that, unless
this doctrine were true, their views upon the subject of predesti-
nation could not well be maintained, and would be destitute of

440 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

one of the foundations on which they rest. Our doctrine of pre-
destination necessarily implies that men are all by nature, in point
of fact, in a condition of guilt and depravity, from which they are
unable to rescue themselves, and that God might, without injustice,
have left them all in this condition to perish. It is this state of
things, as a fact realized in the actual condition of men by nature,
that lays a foundation for the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination,
or God's choosing some out of this condition, of His mere free
grace and love, and determining to save them ; and it is upon this
ground — as evincing that all might justly have been left to perish,
and that none had any claim upon God for deliverance and salva-
tion— that we vindicate our doctrine from many of the objections
by which it is commonly assailed, as if it represented God as
exhibiting respect of persons, in any sense implying injustice, with
reference to those whom He decreed to save, or as exhibiting in-
justice in any sense with reference to those whom He decreed to
pass by, and to leave to perish. I do not at present enter into any
exposition or defence of the doctrine of the fall of the human race
in Adam, — of the grounds on which the universal guilt and de-
pravity of men, as a matter of fact, is established, or of the light,
partial indeed, but still important, which Scripture casts upon this
mysterious subject, by making known to us the imputation of
Adam's sin to his posterity. It is enough to remark that Armi-
nians never have disproved the Calvinistic doctrine of the universal
guilt and depravity of mankind, and of course have no right to
found upon a denial of this great fact an argument against the
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. Could the universal guilt
and depravity of mankind by nature, as a matter of fact, be con-
clusively disproved, this would no doubt occasion serious difficulty
to Calvinists, in establishing and vindicating their doctrine of pre-
destination ; but then, on the other hand, the proof of this fact —
which can be satisfactorily established both from Scripture and
experience — not only leaves the doctrine of predestination unas-
sailable from that quarter, but affords some positive evidence in
support of it ; for it is manifest that, if men are all by nature, in
point of fact, involved in guilt or depravity, — if they are wholly
unable to deliver themselves, and have no claim whatever upon
God for deliverance, — then the deliverance and salvation of those
of them who are delivered and saved must originate wholly in the
good pleasure — in the free grace and love — of God, and must be

Sec. X.] PEEDESTINATION, AND OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 441

effected only by His almighty power, — principles which Arminians
may profess to hold in words, but which are manifestly incon-
sistent with the whole substance and spirit of their theology, and
which find their full and honest expression only in the doctrines
of Calvinism.

Sec. 10. — Predestination^ and the Omniscience of God.

This naturally leads us to advert to the support which the
Calvinistic doctrine derives from the scriptural representations of
the divine perfections and sovereignty, as exercised in the govern-
ment of the world. Calvinists have always contended that their
doctrine of predestination is involved in, or clearly deducible from,
the views which are presented, both by reason and revelation,
concerning what are called the natural attributes of God, — His
infinite power, knowledge, and wisdom, — and the supreme and
sovereign dominion which He exercises, and must exercise, over
all His creatures ; and it is on this account that some of the fun-
damental principles bearing upon the subject of predestination are
often discussed, in systems of theology, under the head " De Deo,"
in giving an account of the divine attributes and perfections, and
especially in considering the subject of God's will, — that is. His
power of volition, — the principles which regulate, and the results
which flow from, its exercise. The substance of the argument
is this, — that the Arminian system of theology, in several ways,
ascribes to God what is inconsistent with His infinite perfections,
and represents Him as acting and conducting His government
of the world in a manner which cannot be reconciled with the
full exercise of the attributes or perfections which He undoubt-
edly possesses ; whereas the Calvinistic doctrine not only leaves
full scope for the exercise of all His perfections in the government
of the world, so as to be free from all objection on that ground,
but may be directly and positively deduced from what we know
concerning their nature and exercise. The two principal topics
around which the discussion of the points involved in the in-
vestigation of this department has been gathered, are the divine
omniscience and the divine sovereignty.

God knows all things, possible and actual ; and Arminians, as
distinguished from Socinians, admit that God's omniscience in-
cludes all the actions which men ever perform, — that is, that He

442

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

from eternity foresaw — and this not merely probably and con-
jecturally, but certainly and infallibly — every event that has
occm'red or will occur, — every action which men have performed
or will perform ; so that from eternity He could have infallibly
predicted every one of them, as He has, in fact, predicted many
which have occurred just as He had foretold. Now, when we dwell
upon this truth, — which Arminians concede, — and realize what
is involved or implied in it, we can scarcely fail to see that it
suggests considerations which disprove the Arminian, and estab-
lish the Calvinistic, doctrine of predestination. God's foreknow-
ledge of all events, implies that they are fixed and certain ; that,
from some cause or other, it has already become a certain thing
■ — a thing determined and unalterable — that they shall take place,
— a proposition asserting that they shall come to pass being al-
ready, even from eternity, a true proposition. This is inconsistent
with that contingency which the principles of the Arminians require
them to ascribe to the actions of men. And it is to no purpose
to allege, as they commonly do, that certainty is not a quality of
the events themselves, but only of the mind contemplating them ;*
for, even though this were conceded as a mere question of defini-
tion, or of exactness in the use of language, it would still hold
true, that the certainty with which the divine mind contemplates
them as future, affords good ground for the inference that they
are not contingent or undetermined, so that it is just as possible
that they may not take place as that they may ; but that their
future occurrence is already — that is, from eternity — a fixed and
settled thing ; and if so, nothing can have fixed or settled this,
except the good pleasure of God, — the great First Cause, — freely
and unchangeably fore-ordaining whatsoever comes to pass.f So
much for the bearing of God's certain foreknowledge of all
future events upon the character and causes of the events them-
selves.

But there is another question which has been broached upon
this subject, — namely. How could God foresee all future events,
except on the ground of his having fore-ordained them, or de-
creed to bring them to pass? The question may seem a pre-

* Copleston's Enquiry into the Doc-
trines of Necessity and Predestination,
Preface, and Discourse iii.

t Edwards on the Freedom of the

Will, P. ii. sec. xii. quoted by Cople-
ston, Dis. i. pp. 39, 40. Edwards'
Remarks on important Theological
Controversies, c. iii. sees. vi. xvii.

Sec. X.] PREDESTINATION, AND OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 443

sumptuous one : for it must be admitted that, in order to derive
an argument in favour of Calvinism from this consideration, we
must assert that it is not possible that God could have certainly
foreseen all future events, unless He had fore-ordained them ;
and it is not commonly warrantable or safe to indulge in dogmatic
assertions, as to what was or was not possible to God, unless we
have His own explicit declaration to this eifect, — as we have in
Scripture in some instances, — to authorize the assertion. Still
this consideration is not altogether destitute of weight, as an
argument in favour of Calvinism. We are fully warranted in
saying that we are utterly unable to form any conception of the
possibility of God's foreseeing certainly future events, unless He
had already — that is, previously in the order of nature, though,
of course, not of time — fore-ordained them. And in saying this,
we have the support of the Socinian section of our opponents,
who have conceded, as I formerly noticed, that if the infallible
foreknowledge of all future events be admitted, the Calvinistic
doctrine of predestination cannot be refuted ; and who were ac-
customed, when pressed with the proof that God had foretold
certain particular actions of men, to take refuge in the position,
that^ if so, He must have fore-ordained these particular actions,
and was thus enabled to predict them ; while they denied that
this holds true of future actions in general. We are not, indeed,
entitled to make our inability to conceive hoio God could have
foreseen all events without having fore-ordained them, a proof
of the impossibility of His having done so ; but still this inability
is entitled to some weight in the absence of any conclusive evi-
dence on the other side ; and this use, at least, M'e are fully war-
ranted to make of it, — namely, that we may fairly regard it as
neutralizing or counterbalancing the leading objection against
the Calvinistic scheme, derived from the alleged impossibility of
conceiving lioio God could fore-ordain whatsoever comes to pass,
and yet man be responsible for his actions. There is just as
much difficulty in conceiving how God could have foreknown all
events unless He fore-ordained them, as in conceiving how man
can be responsible for his actions, unless God has not fore-ordained
them ; and the one difficulty may be fairly set over against the
other.

Arminians, in dealing with the arguments in favour of the
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, derived from God's omni-

444

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

science, are accustomed to enlarge upon the difference between
foreknowledge and fore-ordination, to show that the knowledge
which another being may possess that we will perform certain
actions, does not interfere with our freedom or exert any influence
or efSciency in bringing these actions to pass ; while fore-ordina-
tion does. Now this mode of arguing does not really touch the
point at present in dispute. It may affect the question, how far
God's fore-ordination of all events exempts men from the respon-
sibility of their sins, and involves Him in it ; but it does not touch
the argument by which, from foreknowledge, we infer fore-ordi-
nation ; * and that is the only point with which we have at present
to do. The mere knowledge which another being may possess,
that I shall perform certain actions, will not of itself exert any
influence upon the production of these actions ; but it may, not-
withstanding, afford a satisfactory proof in the way of inference,
that these actions, yet future, are fixed and determined ; that
provision has been made, in some way or other, for effecting that
they shall take place ; and that, with this provision, whatever it
may he, the foreknowledge of them, when traced back to its original
source, must be inseparably connected. There is no fair analogy
— though this is really the leading argument of Arminians upon
the subject — between the foreknowledge that may have been
communicated to the mind of another being of my future actions,
and that foreknowledge of them, existing in the divine mind, from
which all certain foreknowledge of them must have been derived.
The certain foreknowledge of future events belongs, originally
and inherently, only to God, and must be communicated by Him
to any other beings who possess it. He may have communicated
the knowledge of some future actions of men to an angel, and
the angel may have communicated it to one of the prophets.
At neither of these stages, in the transmission, is there anything
to exert any influence upon the production of the result; but
still the certainty of the knowledge communicated and possessed
affords good ground for the inference that the events must have
been fixed and determined. And when we trace this knowledge
up to its ultimate source, in the divine mind, and contemplate it

* The unsatisfactoriness of this an-
swer is virtually admitted by Arch-
bishop Whately. Essaijs on Dijjicul-

ties in St. PauVs Writings, Ess. iil
sec. iv. pp. 141-2, oth ed. 1845.

Sec. X.] PREDESTINATION, AND OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 445

as existing there from all eternity, we are constrained, while we
still draw the same inference as before, — namely, that the fore-
knowledge affords proof that the events were fixed and settled, —
to ascribe the determination of them, or the provision securing
that they shall take place, to the only existing and adequate
cause, — namely, the eternal purpose of God, according to the
counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably fore-ordaining
whatsoever is to come to pass.

The doctrine of God's omniscience has been employed by Cal-
vinists, not only as affording a direct and positive proof or evi-
dence of His having fore-ordained all events, but also as affording
a satisfactory answer to some of the objections which are adduced
by Arminians against the doctrine. There are not a few of the
arguments which Arminians adduce, both from reason and Scrip-
ture, against the doctrine of predestination, founded on facts or
statements alleged to be inconsistent with its truth, and there-
fore disproving it, with respect to which it is easy to show that,
if validy they would equally disprove God's having foreseen all
events. And when this can be established, then the right con-
clusion is, that, as they prove too much, they prove nothing. I
will not enlarge upon this point, but content myself with simply
mentioning it, as one important topic to be attended to in the
study of this controversy.

After this explanation of the way and manner in which the
doctrine of God's omniscience bears upon the controversy between
Calvinists and Arminians on the subject of predestination, we
need not be surprised at a statement I formerly made, — namely,
that while Arminians in general have not ventured to follow the
Socinians in denying that God foresees all future events, some of
them have made it manifest that they would very willingly deny
the divine foreknowledge, if they could, or dared. As this is an
important fact in the history of theological discussion, and well
fitted to afford instruction and warning, it may be proper to refer
to some of the evidences on which it rests. Arminius himself
maintained — as the sounder portion of those who have been
called after his name have generally done — that God certainly
foresees all future events, and that the election of individuals to
life was founded upon this foresight. But his followers soon
found that this admission of the divine foreknowledge involved
them in difficulties from which they could not extricate them-

446

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

selves ; and they, in consequence, began to omit it altogether in
their exposition of their views, and then to talk doubtfully, first
of its importance, and then of its truth. In their Acta et Scripta
Synodalia, published in 1620, they omit all reference to God's
foreknowledge, and declare it to be their opinion, that the object
of election to glory, is all those men, and those only, who, by
divine assistance, believe in Christ, and persevere and die in true
faith,* — just as if God Himself did not know certainly whether
a particular individual would be saved until He actually saw the
termination of his life. They followed the same course in the
Confession written by Episcopius, but published in 1622 in the
name of the whole body; and when they were challenged for
this, in an answer to the Confession, written by the professors
of theology at Ley den, entitled Censura in Confessioiiem, and
called upon to declare their sentiments openly upon this impor-
tant subject, they, in their Apologia pro Confessione, in reply to
the Censure, — a work written also by Episcopius, in the name of
them all, — evaded the demand, and refused to make any declara-
tion of their sentiments f upon the subject, attempting to escape
by a sophistical, quibbling retort upon their opponents. Epis-
copius and Limborch, in their own works, have both spoken
doubtfully or disparagingly of the doctrine of the divine fore-
knowledge, and have intimated that, in their opinion, it was not
of much importance whether men believed it or not. Nay, they
almost, in so many words, admit that they have been obliged to
concede reluctantly the truth of this doctrine ; because they have
not been able to devise any plausible mode of evading or disposing
of the fact, that the Scripture contains predictions of the future
actions of free responsible beings. And Curcellseus has gone so
far as to tell us plainly, that men had much better reject fore-
knowledge than admit fore-ordination. His words are : " Non
dubitabo hie asserere, minus ilium in Deum esse injurium, qui
f uturorum contingentium Prsescientiam ipsi prorsus adimit ; quara
qui statuit Deum, ut ilia certo prajscire possit, in alterutram par-
tem decreto suo prius determinare." %

* Act. et Script. Synod. P. ii. p.
5; Araesii Anti - sjiiodalia Scripta,

t Censura in Con/essionem, c. ii.
sec. viii. p. 39 ; Apologia, pp. 43-4 ;

Amesii Anti - synodalia Scripta, pp.
ll-UJ; Liniborch's Thcologia Chris-
tiana, lib. ii. c. viii. sec. xxvii.
X Institutio, lib. ii. c. vii. p. 53.

Sec. X.] PREDESTINATION, AND OMNISCIENCE OP GOD. 447

Some Arminian divines have indicated the same leanincr and
tendency, — though in a somewhat different form, — by suggestino-
that God's omniscience may imply merely that He ca7i know all
things, if He chooses, — just as His omnipotence implies that He
can do all things, if He chooses. This notion has been advocated
even by some of the more evangelical Arminians, such as the
late celebrated Wesleyan commentator, Dr. Adam Clarke ; but it
only shows that they feel the difficulty, without affording them
any fair means of escape. There is no fair analogy between the
omniscience and the omnipotence of God in this matter : for
future events — that is, events which are certainly to be — are not
merely possible things^ but actual realities, though yet future ; and
therefore, to ascribe to God actual ignorance of any of them, even
though it is conceded that He might know them if He chose, is
plainly and palpably to deny to Him the attribute of omniscience.
And men who hold this notion would act a more consistent and
creditable part, if they would at once avow the Socinian doctrine
upon this subject ; for thei/, too, admit that God can foreknow all
future events if He chooses, — that is, by fore-ordaining them.

Another attempt has been made by Arminians to dispose of
the arguments in favour of Calvinism, derived from the divine
omniscience, and indeed from the divine attributes and perfec-
tions generally. It was fully expounded and applied by Arch-
bishop King, in his celebrated sermon, entitled " Divine Pre-
destination and Foreknowledge consistent with the Freedom of
Man's Will;" and it has been adopted by some of the most
eminent anti-Calvinistic writers of the present day, — as Arch-
bishop Whately and Bishop Copleston. It consists substantially
— for I cannot enter into any detailed explanation of it — in
maintaining that we know too little about God, and the divine
attributes and perfections, to warrant us in drawing conclusions
from them as to the divine procedure, — that the divine attributes,
though called by the same names, are not the same in kind as
those which we ourselves possess, even while infinitely superior
in degree ; but that our knowledge of them is altogether analo-
gical, and that we are not entitled to draw inferences or conclu-
sions,— from the divine knowledge or wisdom, for instance, — as
we would from the same qualities — that is, knowledge and wisdom
— in men. We do not dispute that there is a large measure of
truth in this general view of the subject ; and it would have

448 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

been well if Arminians had acted somewhat more fully upon the
practical lessons which it suggests. Their principal arguments
against Calvinism have always been derived from its alleged in-
consistency with the moral attributes of God, — His goodness,
justice, and holiness; and if they are to be deprived, by a sounder
philosophy upon this subject, of their arguments derived from
these topics, they will have little else to say. The principle, in so
far as it is sound and just, overturns the great body of the common
Arminian objections against Calvinism ; and'Archbishop Whately
candidly and consistently abandons, virtually, as unwarrantable
and unphilosophical, the objections against Calvinism, on which
Arminians have been accustomed to rest their chief confidence,
derived from its alleged inconsistency with the moral perfections
of God. The principle, however, does seem to be carried too
far, when it is laid down so absolutely that our knowledge of
God's attributes is wholly analogical, and does not warrant any
inferences as to the mode of the divine procedure. The incom-
prehensibility of Jehovah — the infinite distance between a finite
and an infinite being — should ever be fully recognised and acted
on. But Scripture and right reason seem plainly enough to war-
rant the propriety and legitimacy of certain inferences or con-
clusions as to God's procedure, derived from the contemplation
of His attributes, — especially from what are called His natural,
as distinguished from His moral, attributes. The arguments in
favour of Calvinism have been derived from His natural attri-
butes,— His power and supremacy, — His knowledge and wisdom ;
while the objections against it have been commonly derived from
His moral attributes, — His goodness, justice, and holiness. And
there is one important distinction between these two classes of
attributes, which furnishes a decided advantage to Calvinism, by
showing that inferences as to the divine procedure, derived from
the natural, may be more warrantable and certain than inferences
derived from the moral, attributes of God. While we ought never
to forget, that in all God does He acts in accordance with all
the perfections of His nature ; still it is plain that His moral
attributes — if each were fully carried out and operating alone —
would lead to different and opposite modes of dealing with His
creatures, — that while His goodness might prompt Him to confer
happiness. His holiness and justice might prompt Him to inflict
pain as punishment for sin. His mercy and compassion may be

Sec. XI.] PREDESTINATION, AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 449

exercised upon some sinners, and His holiness and justice upon
others; so that we cannot, from His moral attributes merely,
draw any certain conclusions as to whether He would save all
sinners, or none, or some ; and if some, upon what principles He
would make the selection. God's moral attributes are manifested
and exercised in purposing and in bringing to pass the ultimate
destiny, both of those who are saved and of those who perish.
The one class, to use the language of our Confession, " He pre-
destinates to everlasting life, — to the praise of His glorious grace ;
the other class He passes by, and ordains to dishonour and wrath
for their sin, — to the praise of His glorious justice.^''

Now there is nothing analogous to this diversity, or apparent
contrariety, in regard to God's natural attributes. No purpose,
and no procedure, can be warrantably ascribed to God, which
would imply any defect or limitation in His power, knowledge, or
supremacy. There is nothing which we can fix upon and establish
as limiting or modifying the exercise of these attributes. It is
true that God cannot exercise His power and supremacy in a way
inconsistent with His moral perfections. But still the distinction
referred to shows that we may be proceeding upon much more
uncertain and precarious grounds, when we assert that any par-
ticular mode of procedure ascribed to God is inconsistent with
His infinite goodness, holiness, and justice, than when we assert
that it is inconsistent with His infinite power, knowledge, wisdom,
and sovereign supremacy. In short, I think it would be no diffi-
cult matter to show that we are fully warranted in accepting the
virtual concession of Archbishop Whately as to the precarious
and uncertain character of the arguments against Calvinism, from
its alleged inconsistency with God's moral attributes ; while at
the same time we are not bound to renounce the arguments in
favour of Calvinism, and in opposition to Arminianism, derived
from the consideration of God's natural attributes. This topic
is one of considerable importance, and of extensive application,
in its bearings not only upon the direct and positive arguments
in favour of Calvinism, but also upon the leading objections which
Arminians have been accustomed to adduce against it.

Sec. 11. — Predestination, and the Sovereignty of God.

The leading scriptural doctrines concerning God which have
been employed as furnishing arguments in favour of Calvinism,
3 — VOL. II. 2 F

450 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVEKSY. [Chap. XXV.

are those of the divine omniscience and the divine sovereignty.
The doctrine of the divine sovereignty may be regarded as com-
prehending the topics usually discussed under the heads of the
divine will and the divine efficiency, — or the agency which God,
in providence, exerts in determining men's character, actions, and
destiny. That God is the supreme ruler and governor of the
universe, — that, in the exercise and manifestation of His perfec-
tions, He directs and controls all events, all creatures, and all their
actions, — is universally admitted ; and we contend that this truth,
when realized and applied, under the guidance of the information
given us concerning it in Scripture, affords materials for estab-
lishing Calvlnistlc and for disproving Armlnian views. In the
general truth, universally admitted, that God is the Great First
Cause of all things, — the Creator and the constant Preserver of
everything that exists, — the sovereign Ruler and Disposer of all
events, — seems to be fairly Involved this idea — that He must have
formed a plan for regulating all things ; and that in all that He
is doing in providence, In the wide sense in which we formerly
explained this word, or in the whole actual government of the
world, and all the creatures it contains, He is just carrying into
effect the plan which He had formed ; and if so, must be accom-
plishing His purposes, or executing His decrees, in all that is taking
place, — In whatsoever cometh to pass. The general representa
tions of Scripture describe God as ruling and directing all thin
according to the counsel of His own will ; and this is fully accordani
with the conceptions which we are constrained to form of the agenc
or government of a Being who Is infinite In every perfection, and
who is the First Cause and Supreme Disposer of all things.

In ascribing absolute supremacy or sovereignty to God in the
disposal of all things, Calvlnists do not mean, as their opponents
commonly represent the matter, that He decrees and executes
His decrees or purposes, and acts arbitrarily, or withour reasons.*
•They hold that, in everything which God purposes and does, He
acts upon the best reasons. In the exercise of His own Infinltej
wisdom, and of all His moral perfections ; but they think that He'
purposes and acts on reasons which He has not thought proper to
make known to us, — which are not level to our comprehension, —

* Walsei Enchiridion Religionis Re-
formats, Opera, torn. i. p. 66. See also
Walsei Loci Communes, Opera, torn. i.

p. 332, where he gives quotations OH
tliis point from Calvin and Beza.

Sec. XI.] PEEDESTINATION, AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 451

and which, therefore, we can resolve only into His own unsearch-
able perfections, — into the counsel of His own will; whereas Ar-
minians virtually undertake to explain or account for all that God
does in His dealings with men, — to assign the causes or reasons of
His purposes and procedure. This, indeed, is one of the distin-
guishing characteristics of the two systems,— that the Arminians
virtually deny God's sovereignty, by undertaking and professing
to assign the reasons of all His dealings with men; while Calvinists
resolve them, principally and ultimately, into the counsel of His
own will, — a view which seems much more accordant with scrip-
tural representations of His perfections, of the relation in which
He stands to His creatures, and of the supremacy which He
exercises over them. The sovereignty ascribed to God in Scrip-
ture, and involved in all worthy conceptions of Him, seems plainly
to imply that His purposes, volitions, and acts must be ascribed
ultimately to the essential perfections of His own nature ; while
it also seems to imply that His purposes and volitions must be, in
some sense, the causes or sources of all that takes place in His
administration of the affairs of the world ; and if these principles
be well founded, they plainly afford clear and certain grounds
for conclusions which form the sum and substance of Calvinistic
theology,' — namely, that God, according to the counsel of His
own will, hath fore-ordained whatsoever cometh to pass, and hath
predetermined the everlasting destiny of all His creatures.

There have been very long and intricate discussions upon the
subject of the will of God, — voluntas Dei, — His power of volition,
including His actual volitions, and the principles by which they
are regulated ; and the investigation of this subject forms an
essential part of the argument in the controversy between Cal-
vinists and Arminians. It is of course universally admitted, that
God has revealed to men a law for the regulation of their charac-
ter and conduct, — that this law indicates and expresses the divine
will as to what they should be and do, and unfolds what will, in
point of fact, be the consequences, upon their fate and ultimate
destiny, of compliance or non-compliance with the divine will thus
revealed to them. On this point — on all that is involved in these
positions — there is no dispute. But in the great truth that God
rules and governs the world, exercising supreme dominion over
all the actions and concerns of men, there is plainly involved this
general idea, — that events, the things which are actually taking

452 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

place, are also, in some sense^ the results, the expressions, the indi-
cations, of the divine will, or of what God desires and purposes
should exist or take place. It is admitted that everything that
takes place — including all the actions which men perform, and
of course including their ultimate fate or destiny — was foreseen
by God ; and that His providence is, in some way or other, con-
cerned in the ordering of all events. It cannot be disputed, with-
out denying God's omnipotence, that He could have prevented
the occurrence of anything, or everything, that has taken place, or
will yet take place, if He had so chosen, — if this had been His
will or pleasure ; and therefore everything that cometh to pass —
including the actions and the ultimate destiny of men — must be, in
some sense, in accordance with His will, — with what He has de-
sired and purposed. The question of Augustine is unanswerable :
" Quis porro tam impie desipiat, ut dicat Deum malas hominum
voluntates quas voluerit, quando voluerit, ubi voluerit, in bonum
non posse convertere 1 " * Many of the events that take place —
such as the sinful actions of men — are opposed to, or inconsistent
with. His will as revealed in His law, which is an undoubted indi-
cation of what He wished or desired that men should do. Here,
therefore, there is a difficulty, — an apparent contrariety of wills in
God; and of course either one or other of these things, — namely,
the law and event must be held not to indicate the will of God ;
or else, some distinctions must be introduced, by which the whole
of what is true, and is proved, upon this subject may be expressed.
It is unquestionable that the law is an expression of the divine
■will, and indicates that, in some sense, God wishes, as He com-
mands and enjoins, that all His rational creatures should ever
walk in the ways of holiness ; and that all men, doing so, should
be for ever blessed. Arminians virtually contend that this is the
onli/ true and real indication of the mind and will of God, and
that actual events, simply as such, are not to be regarded as ex-
pressing, in any sense, the divine will, — indicating at all what
God wished or desired, — what He purposed or has effected ; while
Calvinists contend that events, simply as such, — and of course all ^
events, — do, as well as His law, in some sense express or indicate |
God's will ; and hold this position to be certainly involved in the
doctrine of the supreme dominion which He exercises over all the

* Augustini Enchiridion, c. 98. Opera, lorn. vi. p. 170. Edit. Benedio

Sec. XI.] PREDESTINATION, AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 453

actions and concerns of men ; and in the obvious and undeniable
consideration, that He could have prevented the occurrence of
everything that has occurred, or will occur, and would have done
so, if it had not been, in some sense, accordant with His will, and
fitted to accomplish His purposes, — that He could, if He had
thought proper, have prevented the sin and the final destruction
of all His rational creatures. As the Arminians do not regard the
events that take place — the actions which are performed, viewed
simply as such — as at all indicating or expressing any will of
God, they are, of course, obliged to admit that many things come
to pass — such as men's sinful actions — which are altogether, and
in every sense, opposed to God's will. And as this statement,
nakedly put, seems scarcely consistent with God's omnipotence
and supremacy, they are obliged, as well as the Calvinists, to
introduce some distinctions into the exposition of this subject.
The controversy upon this point really resolves very much into
this general question, — whether the Calvinistic or the Arminian
distinctions, or sets of distinctions, on the subject of the will of
God, are the more accordant with right views of the divine per-
fections and character, as they are revealed to us in Scripture.

The distinctions which the Calvinists commonly employ in
expounding and discussing this subject are chiefly these : They
say there is a voluntas decreti and a voluntas prcecepti, or a will of
decree, and a will of precept or command, or a secret and a re-
vealed will ; and these two wills they call by a variety of names,
all of them suggested by something that is said or indicated upon
the subject in Scripture. God's will of decree, or His secret will,
they call also His voluntas evhoKta'^, and voluntas heneplaciti; while
His will of precept, His revealed will, they call also His voluntas
evap€aTia<i, and voluntas signi. Now these terms are really nothing
more than just descriptions of what may be called matters of fact,
as they are set before us in Scripture. There is a will of God
regulating or determining events or actions, and indicated by the
events which take place, — the actions which are performed. To
deny this, is just to exclude God from the government of the world,
— to assert that events take place which He does not direct and
control, and which are altogether, and in every sense, inconsistent
with, or opposed to, His will, or at least wholly uninfluenced by it.
This, His will of decree, determining events, is secret, because
utterly unknown to us until the event occurs, and thereby declares

454 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

it. Every event that does occur reveals to us something concern-
ing the will of God — that is, concerning what God had purposed,
— had resolved to bring to pass, or at least to permit — of which
we were previously ignorant. There is nothing in these distinc-
tions, the voluntas decreti, arcana, evhoKia<i, heneplaciii (all these
four expressions being, according to the usus loquendi that prevails
among Calvinistic divines, descriptions, or just different designa-
tions, of one and the same thing, — namely, of the will by which
God determines events or results), and the voluntas prceceptiy
revelata, evapeaTla<i, and signi (these four contrasting respectively
with the preceding, and being all likewise descriptive of one and
the same thing, — namely, of the will by which He determines
duties) ; — there is nothing in these two sets of distinctions but just
the embodying in language — technical, indeed, to some extent,
but still suggested and sanctioned by Scripture — of two doctrines,
both of which we are constrained to admit. In no other way
could we bring out, and express, the whole of what Scripture
warrants us to believe upon this subject ; because, as has been
said, the only alternative is, to maintain that the events which
take place — including the actions and the ultimate fate of men
— are w no sense indications of the divine will ; in other words,
have been brought about altogether independently of God, and of
His agency. That there are difficulties in the exposition of the
matter — difficulties which we cannot fully solve — is not disputed ;
but this affords no sufficient ground for rejecting, or refusing to
admit, whatever is fully sanctioned by the sacred Scriptures, and
confirmed by the plain dictates of reason.

There are no such difficulties attaching to the Calvinistic, as
to the Arminian, doctrines upon this subject. Not only is their
general position — that events or results, simply as such, are not,
in any sense, expressions or indications of the will of God —
plainly inconsistent with right views of the divine omnipotence
and supremacy ; but, in the prosecution of the subject, they need
to have recourse to distinctions which still further manifest the
inconsistency of their whole system with right views of the divine
perfections and government. The great distinction which they
propose and urge upon this subject, is that between the antecedent
and the consequent will of God; or, what is virtually the same thing,
the inefficacious or conditional, and the efficacious or absolute, will
of God. These distinctions they commonly apply, not so much

Sec. XI.] PREDESTINATION, AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 455

to the purposes and decrees of God in general, and in all tlieir
extent, in their bearing upon whatsoever comes to pass, but only
to the ultimate fate or destiny of men. They ascribe to God
an antecedent will to save all men, and a consequent will — a will
or purpose consequent upon, and conditioned by, their conduct,
actual or foreseen — to save those, and those only, who believe
and persevere, and to consign to misery those who continue in
impenitence and unbelief. This antecedent will is of course not
absolute, but conditional, — not efficacious, but inefficacious. And
thus they represent God as willing what never takes place, and
what, therefore. He must be either unable or unwilling to effect.
To say that He is unable to effect it, is to deny His omnipotence
and supremacy. To say that He is unwilling to effect it, is to
contradict themselves, or to ascribe to God two opposite and con-
trary wills, — one of which takes effect, or is followed by the result
. willed, and the other is not. To ascribe to God a conditional will
of saving all men, while yet many perish, is to represent Him
as willing what He knows will never take place, — as suspending
His own purposes and plans upon the volitions and actions of
creatures who live and move and have their being in Him, — as
wholly dependent on them for the attainment of what He is
desirous to accomplish ; and all this, surely, is plainly inconsistent
with what we are taught to believe concerning the divine per-
fections and government, — the relation in which God stands to
His creatures, and the supremacy which He exercises over them.*
If God's decrees or purposes concerning the salvation of in-
dividual men are founded — as Arminians teach — solely upon the
foresight of their faith and perseverance, this represents Him as
wholly dependent upon them for the formation of His plans and
purposes ; while it leaves the whole series of events that constitute
the moral history of the world, and, in some sense, determine
men's everlasting destiny, wholly unexplained or unaccounted
for, — entirely unregulated or uncontrolled by God. The highest,
and indeed the only, function ascribed to Him with respect to
men's actions and fate, is that simply of foreseeing them. He
does this, and He does nothinc more. What it was that settled or
determined their futurition — or their being to be — is left wholly
unexplained by the Arminians ; while Calvinists contend that this

■ * Turrettin., Loc. iii. Qu. xv. and xvi.

456 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

must be ascribed to the will of God, exercised in accordance with
all the perfections of His nature. Their specific character, with their
consequent results, in their bearing upon men's eternal destiny,
is really determined by men themselves ; for, while Arminians
do not dispute that God's providence and grace are, somehow,
exercised in connection with the production of men's actions, they
deny that He exercises any certainly efficacious or determining
influence in the production of any of them. Whatever God
does, in time, in the administration of the government of the
world, He purposed or resolved to do from eternity. Arminians
can scarcely deny this position ; but then the admission of it only
makes them more determined to limit the extent and efficacy of
His agency in the production of events or results, and to with-
hold from Him any determining influence in the production even
of good characters and good actions. Calvinists apply the prin-
ciple of God's having decreed from eternity to do all that He
actually does in time, in this way. The production of all that is
spiritually good in men, — the production of faith and regenera-
tion,— are represented in Scripture as the work of God ; they are
ascribed to His efficacious and determining agency. Faith and
regeneration are inseparably connected, according to God's ar-
rangements, in each case, with salvation. If the general principle
above stated be true, then it follows, that whenever God produces
faith and regeneration, He is doing in time what He purposed
from eternity to do ; and He is doing it, in order to effect what
He must also have resolved from eternity to effect, — namely, the
everlasting salvation of some men, — that is, of all to whom He
gives faith and regeneration. Hence it will be seen how im-
portant, in this whole controversy, is the subject of the certain or
determining efficacy of divine grace in the production of faith
and regeneration ; and how essentially the whole Arminian cause
is bound up with the ascription of such a self-determining power
to the human will, as excludes the certain and unfrustrable efficacy
of God's grace in renovating and controlling it. The production
of faith and regeneration is a work of God, wrought by Him on
some men and not on others, — wrought upon them in accordance,
indeed, with the whole principles of their mental constitution,
but still wrouglit certainly and infallibly, whenever the power
that is necessary for the production of it — without the exercise of
which it could not be effected — is actually put forth.

Sec. XL] PREDESTINATION, AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 457

If this be the agency by which faith and regeneration are in
each case produced, — if the production of them is, in this sense,
to be ascribed to God, — then He must have decreed or purposed
from eternity to produce them, whenever they are produced ;
and, of course, to effect the ultimate and permanent results with
which their existence stands inseparably connected, — namely,
deliverance from guilt, and everlasting happiness. Were the
production of faith and regeneration left dependent, in each case,
upon the exercise of men's own free will, — that being made the
turning-point, — and divine grace merely assisting or co-operating,
but not certainly determining the result, then it is possible, so
far as this department of the argument is concerned, that God
might indeed have decreed from eternity what He would do in
the matter, but still might, so far as concerned the actual produc-
tion of the result, merely foresee what each man would do in im-
proving the grace given him, and might be wholly regulated by
this mere foresight in anything He might purpose with respect to
men's ultimate fate. Whereas, if God produces faith and regene-
ration,— if it be, indeed. His agency that determines and secures
their existence wherever they come to exist, — then, upon the
general principle, that God resolved to do from eternity whatever
He does in time, we are shut up to the conclusion, that He chose
some men to faith and regeneration, — that He did so in order
that He might thereby save them^ — and that thus both the faith
and the salvation of those who believe and are saved, are to be
ascribed wholly to the good pleasure of God, choosing them to be
the subjects of His almighty grace and the heirs of eternal glory.

Results, or events, are, of course, expressions or indications of
God's will, only in so far as He is concerned in the production of
them. The general views taught, both by reason and Scripture,
about God's perfections, supremacy, and providence, fully warrant
us in believing that His agency is, in some way, concerned in the
production of all events or results whatever, since it is certain that
He could have prevented any of them from coming to pass if He
had so chosen, and must, therefore, have decreed or purposed
either to produce, or, at least, to permit them. God's agency is
not employed in the same manner, and to the same extent, in the
production of all events or results ; and the fulness and clearness
with which different events and results express or indicate the
divine will, depend upon the kind and degree of the agency which

458 THE AEMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

He exerts — and of course purposed to exert — in the ordering
them. This agency is not exerted in the same manner, or in the
same degree, in the permission of the bad, as in the production of
the good, actions of men. In the good actions of men, God's
voluntas decreti and His voluntas pra^cepti — His secret and His
revealed will — concur and combine ; in their sinful actions they
do not ; and therefore these latter do not express or indicate the
divine will in the same sense, or to the same extent, as the former.
Still we cannot exclude even them wholly from the voluntas
decreti, as they are comprehended in the general scheme of His
providence, — as they are directed and overruled by Him for pro-
moting His wise and holy purposes, — and as He must, at least,
have decreed or resolved to permit them, since He could have
prevented them if He had chosen.

Arminians base their main attempt to exclude or limit the
application of these principles upon the grand peculiarity of free
agency as attaching to rational and responsible beings. We for-
merly had occasion, in discussing the subject of the efficacy of
grace, to advert to the considerations by which this line of argu-
ment was to be met, — namely, by showing the unreasonableness of
the idea that God had created any class of beings who, by the con-
stitution He had given them, should be placed absolutely beyond
His control in anything affecting their conduct and fate ; and by
pointing out the impossibility of proving that anything which Oal-
vinists ascribe to God's agency in ordering or determining men's
actions, character, and destiny, necessarily implies a contravention
or violation of anything attaching to man as man, or to will as
will. And while this is the true state of the case in regard to
God's agency in the production of men's actions generally, and
the limitation which free-will is alleged to put upon the character
and results of this agency, we have full and distinct sjjecial infor-
mation given us in Scripture in regard to by far the most im-
portant department at once of God's agency and men's actions, —
namely, the production and the exercise of faith and conversion,
which are inseparably connected in each case with salvation ; and
this information clearly teaches us that God does not leave the
production of faith and conversion to be dependent upon any mere
powers or capacities of the human will, but produces them Him-
self, wherever they are produced, certainly and infallibly, by His
own almighty power; and of course must, upon principles already

Sec. XII.] SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR PREDESTINATION. 459

explained, have decreed or purposed from eternity to put forth in
time this ahnighty power, wherever it is put forth, to effect the
result Avhich it alone is sufficient or adequate to effect, and to
accomplish all the ultimate results with which the production of
these effects stands inseparably connected. If this be so, then the
further conclusion is unavoidable, — that, in regard to all those in
whom God does not put forth this almighty power to produce
faith and conversion, He had decreed or purposed, from eternity,
to pass by these men, and to leave them to perish in their natural
state of guilt and depravity, to the praise of His glorious justice.

Sec. 12. — Scripture Evidence for Predestination.

We have illustrated some of the leading arguments in favour
of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, derived from other
principles and doctrines, which are taught at once by Scripture and
reason, and which either actually involve or include this doctrine,
or can be shown to lead to it by necessary consequence, — especially
the doctrines of God's omniscience, including His foreknowledge
of all future events, and of His sovereignty or supremacy, or of His
right to regulate, and His actually regulating, all things accord-
ing to the counsel of His own will ; more particularly as exhibited
in the bestowal of the almighty or infallibly efficacious grace, by
which faith and regeneration — the inseparable accompaniments
of salvation — are produced in some men, to the pretention or ex-
clusion of others. These great doctrines of the divine omniscience
and the divine sovereignty are taught by natural as well as by re-
vealed religion ; and if it be indeed true, as we have endeavoured
to prove, that they afford sufficient materials for establishing the
doctrines that God has fore-ordained whatsoever cometh to pass,
and that He determines the everlasting destinies of all His crea-
tures, then must the Calvinistic scheme of theology not only be
consistent with, but be required by, all worthy and accurate con-
ceptions which, from any source, we are able to form concerning
the divine perfections and supremacy. There are other principles
or doctrines clearly revealed in Scripture, that afford satisfactory
evidence in support of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, —
principles and doctrines connected with topics which are matters
of pure revelation, as entering more immediately into the cha-
racter and provisions of the scheme which God has devised and

460 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXV.

executed for the salvation of sinners, for delivering men from-
their natural state of guilt and depravity, and preparing them for
the enjoyment of eternal blessedness. This general head may be
said to comprehend all indications given iis in Scripture of God's]
having a peculiar or chosen people, as distinguished from the]
mass of the human race,^ — of His having given His Son to be]
the Redeemer and the Head of a chosen or select company from]
among men, — of His having given some men to Christ in cove-
nant as the objects of His peculiar care and kindness, — and of
the way and manner in which all this is connected, in point of
fact, with the ultimate salvation of those who are saved.

Everything which is either asserted or indicated in Scripture
concerning the end for which Christ was sent into the world, and
the purposes which His humiliation, sufferings, and death were
intended to effect, and do effect, in connection with the fall and
the salvation, the ruin and the recovery, of men, is in fullest
harmony with the principle that God has, out of His mere good
pleasure, elected some men to eternal life, and has unchangeably
determined to save these men with an everlasting salvation, and
is indeed consistent or reconcilable with no other doctrine upon
this subject. The general tenor of Scripture statement upon
all these topics can be reconciled with no scheme of doctrine
which does not imply that God from eternity selected some men
to salvation, without anything of superior worth foreseen in
them, as a condition or cause moving Him thereunto, — that this
choice or election is the origin or source of everything in them
which conduces or contributes to their salvation, — and implies
that effectual provision has been made for securing that result.
In short, all that is stated in Scripture concerning the lost and
ruined condition of men by nature, and the provision made for
their deliverance and salvation, — all that is declared or indi-
cated there concerning the divine purpose or design with respect
to ruined men, — the object or end of the vicarious work of the
Son, — the efficacious agency of the Spirit in producing faith and
conversion, holiness and perseverance, — is perfectly harmonious,
and, when combined together, just constitutes the Calvinistic
scheme of theology, — of God's electing some men to salvation
of His own good pleasure, — giving them to Christ to be redeemed
by Him, — sending forth His Spirit to apply to them the blessings
which Christ purchased for them, — and thus securing that they

Sec. XII.] SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR PREDESTINATION. 461

shall enjoy eternal blessedness, to the praise of the glory of His
grace. This is the only scheme of doctrine that is really con-
sistent with itself, and the only one that can be really reconciled
with the fundamental principles that most thoroughly pervade
the whole word of God with respect to the natural condition and
capacities of men, and the grace and agency of God as exhibited
in the salvation of those of them who are saved.

But I need not dwell longer upon the support which the Cal-
vinistic doctrine of predestination derives from the great general
principles, or from other particular doctrines, taught in Scripture
concerning God's perfections and supremacy, and the leading
provisions and arrangements of the scheme of salvation, — of the
covenant of grace ; and will now proceed, according to the divi-
sion formerly intimated, to make a few observations upon the
way in which the scriptural evidence of this doctrine has been
discussed, in the more limited sense of the words, as including
the investigation of the meaning of those scriptural statements
that bear more directly and immediately upon the precise point
in dispute. I do not mean to expound the evidence, or to unfold
it, but merely to suggest some such observations concerning it as
may be fitted to assist in the study of the subject.

Though the subject, as thus defined and limited, may be
supposed to include only those scriptural statements which speak
directly and immediately of predestination, or election to grace and
glory, yet it is important to remember that any scriptural state-
ments which contain plain indications of a limitation or specialty
in the destination of Christ's death as to its personal objects, and of
a limitation or specialty in the actual exercise or forth-putting of
that gracious agency which is necessaiy to the production of faith
and regeneration, may be regarded as bearing directly^ rather than
in the way of inference or implication, upon the truth of the Cal-
vinistic doctrine of predestination. The connection between the
doctrines of absolute personal election to life — particular redemp-
tion— and special distinguishing efficacious grace in conversion, is
so clear and so close, as scarcely to leave any room for inference
or argumentation. They are, indeed, rather parts of one great
doctrine ; and the proof of the truth of any one of them directly
and necessarily establishes the truth of the rest. The Arminian
scheme — that is, in its more Pelagian, as distinguished from its
more evangelical, form — may be admitted to be equally consistent

462 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

with itself in these points, though consistent only in denying the
whole of the fundamental principles taught in Scripture with
respect to the method of salvation. And, accordingly, the old
Arminians were accustomed to found their chief scriptural argu-
ments against the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination upon the
proof they professed to produce from the word of God, that
Christ died for all men, — that is, pro omnibus et singulis, — and
that God gives to all men, or at least to all to whom the gospel
is preached, grace sufficient to enable them to repent and believe.
There is not the same consistency or harmony in the representa-
tion of the scheme of Christian doctrine given by some of the
more evangelical Arminians ; for, by their views of the entire
depravity of mankind, and of the nature of the work of the Spirit
in the production of faith and regeneration, they make conces-
sions which, if fully followed out, would land them in Calvinism.
Neither is there full consistency in the views of those men who
hold Calvinistic doctrines upon other points, but at the same
time maintain the universality of the atonement ; for their scheme
of doctrine, as we formerly showed, amounts in substance to this,
— that they at once assert and deny God's universal love to men,
or His desire and purpose of saving all men, — assert it by main-
taining the universality of the atonement, and deny it by main-
taining the specialty of efficacious grace bestowed upon some men,
in the execution of God's eternal purpose or decree. But while
it is thus important to remember that scriptural statements, which
establish the doctrine of particular redemption and of special dis-
tinguishing efficacious grace in conversion, may be said directly,
and not merely in the way of inference, to prove the Calvinistic
doctrine of predestination, yet, as we have already considered
these great doctrines, we intend now to confine our observations
to the discussions which have been carried on with regard to the
meaning and import of those scriptural statements which speak
still more directly and immediately of predestination or election,
— that is, the passages where the words TrpoyLvcoaKco, Trpoopi^o),
IT poT 107)111, 'Trpoerotfid^co, e/cXe^w, and their cognates, occur in
connection with the character and the ultimate destiny of man.

That the different passages where these words occur do, in
their natural and literal import, favour the Calvinistic doctrine,
is too obvious to admit of dispute. I have had occasion to advert
to the fact, that it is no uncommon thing now-a-days for German

Sec. XII.] SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR PREDESTINATION. 463

rationalists — differing in this from the older Socinians — to con-
cede plainly and distinctly that the apostles believed, and intended
to teach, evangelical and Calvinistic doctrine, and that their state-
ments, in accordance with the fair application of the principles
and rules of philology and criticism, cannot admit of any other
interpretation ; while, of course, they do not consider themselves
bound to believe these doctrines upon the authority of any apostle.
An instance of this occurs in regard to the topic we are at present
considering, which it may be worth while to mention. Weg-
scheider, late one of the professors of theology at Halle, in his
Institutiones Theologice Christiance Dogmatical* — usually esteemed
the text-book of rationalistic theology, — admits that these words
naturally and properly express a predestination or election of men
by God to eternal happiness, and adds, " nee nisi neglecto Scrip-
turarum sacrarum usu loquendi alia? significationes, mitiores qui-
dem, illis subjici possunt." He ascribes the maintenance of this
doctrine by the apostle to the erroneous notions of a crude and
uncultivated age concerning divine efficiency, and to the Judaical
particularism from which the apostles were not wholly delivered,
and asserts that it is contradicted in other parts of Scripture ; but
this does not detract from the value of his testimony that the
Apostle Paul believed and taught it, and that his words, critically
investigated, do not admit of any other sense.

The passages which have been referred to, seem plainly fitted
to convey the ideas that God had beforehand chosen, or made a
selection of, some men from among the rest of men, — intending
that these men, thus chosen or selected, should enjoy some peculiar
privilege, and serve some special end or purpose. Even this gene-
ral idea, indicated by the natural meaning of these words taken
by themselves, is inconsistent with the Arminian doctrine, which,
as we formerly explained, does not admit of a real election at all ;
and when it further appears, from the connection in which these
words are employed, — first, that this predestination or election is
not founded upon anything in the men chosen, as the cause or
reason why God chooses them, but only on His own good pleasure;
secondly, that it is a predestination or election of individuals, and
not merely of bodies or masses of men ; and, thirdly, that the
choice or selection is directed to the object of effecting their

* Part iii. c. iii. sec. 145.

464 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

eternal salvation, and does certainly issue in that result, — then
the Calvinistic doctrine upon the subject is fully established.
Calvinists, of course, maintain that all these three positions can
be established with regard to the election which God, in Scripture,
is represented as making among men ; while Arminians deny this.
And on this point hinges most of the discussion that has taken
place in regard to the meaning of those scriptural statements in
which God's act in predestinating or electing is spoken of.

Now, with respect to thej^rs^ of these positions, — namely, that
the election ascribed to God is not founded upon anything in those
chosen, as the cause or reason why He chooses them, but only on
His own good pleasure, — this is so clearly and explicitly asserted
in Scripture — especially in the ninth chapter of Paul's Epistle to
the Romans — that the Arminians scarcely venture to dispute it.
This statement may, at first sight, appear surprising. Knowing,
as we do, that the founding of election upon a foresight of men's
faith and perseverance is a prominent part of the Arminian
scheme, as usually set forth, it might be supposed that, if they do
not dispute this position, they are abandoning their whole cause.
But the explanation lies here. When they maintain the position,
that election is founded upon a foresight of faith and perseverance,
they use the word election in a sense in some measure accommo-
dated to that in which it is employed by their opponents, and not
in the sense in which they themselves generally maintain that it is
used in Scripture ; and, by saying that it is founded upon a fore-
sight of faith and perseverance, they virtually, as we have already
explained, deny that it is election at all. The true and proper
Arminian doctrine, as set forth by Arminius and his followers in
opposition to Calvinism, is this, — that the wliole of the decree of
election — meaning thereby the only thing that bears any resem-
blance to the general idea Calvinists have of a decree of election
— is God's general purpose to save all who shall believe and per-
severe, and to punish all who shall continue in impenitence and
unbelief ; so that, if there be anything which may be called an
election of God to salvation, having reference to men individually,
it can be founded only upon a foresight of men's faith and per-
severance. Now there is nothing in this necessarily inconsistent
with conceding that there is an election of God spoken of in
Scripture, which is founded only upon His own good pleasure,
and not upon anything in the men chosen, so long as they main-

Sec. XII.] SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR PREDESTINATION. 4G5

tain that this is not the personal election to eternal life which the
Calvinists contend for, — that is, so long as they deny one or other
of the two remaining positions of the three formerly stated, — or,
in other words, so long as they assert that the election of God
which is spoken of in Scripture is not an election of individuals,
but of nations or bodies of men ; or, that it is not an election to
faith and salvation, but merely to outward privileges, which men
may improve or not as they choose.

It is true that, amid the confusion usually exhibited when
men oppose truth, and are obliged to try to pervert the plain
and obvious meaning of scriptural statements, some Arminians
have tried to show that even the election of God, described in
the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, is not founded
upon God's good pleasure, but upon something foreseen or exist-
ing in men themselves. But these have not been the most
respectable or formidable advocates of error ; and as the most
plausible defenders of the Arminian scriptural argument concede
this point, it is proper to explain where the main difficulty
really lies, and what they can still maintain, notwithstanding
this concession. Archbishop Whately, in his Essay upon Elec-
tion, which is the third in his work entitled Essays on some of
the Dijiculties in the Writings of St. Paul, distinctly admits that
the word elect, as used in Scripture, " relates in most instances
to an arbitrary, irrespective, unconditional decree ; " * and shows
that those Arminians who endeavour to answer the Calvinistic
argument, founded upon the passages of Scripture where this
word is used, by denying this, are not able to maintain the posi-
tion they have assumed.

The two other positions which were mentioned, as necessary
to be proved in order to establish from Scripture the Calvinistic
argument, are, — first, that there is an election ascribed to God,
which is a choice or selection of some men individually, and not of
nations, or masses of men ; and, secondly, that it is an election of
these men to faith and salvation, and not merely to outward privi-
leges. The Arminians deny that there is any such election spoken
of in Scripture ; and maintain that the only election ascribed to
God is a choice, — either, first, of nations or bodies of men, and
not of individuals ; or, secondly, an election of men to the enjoy-

* Essays, pp. 135, 139 of fifth edition, 1845.
3~V0L. IT. 2 G

466

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

ment of outward privileges, or means of grace, and not to faith
and salvation. Some Arminians prefer the one, and some the
other, of these methods of answering the Calvinistic argument,
and evading the testimony of Scripture ; while others, again, think
it best to employ both methods, according to the exigencies of the
occasion. There is not, indeed, in substance, any very material
difference between them ; and it is a common practice of Armi-
nians to employ the one or the other mode of evasion, according as
the one or the other may seem to them to afford the more plau-
sible materials, for turning aside the argument in favour of Cal-
vinism, derived from the particular passage which they happen to
be examining at the time. The ground taken by Dr. Whately is,
that the election ascribed to God in Scripture, which he admits to
relate, in most instances, to an arbitrary, irrespective, unconditional
decree, is not an election to faith and salvation ; but only to ex-
ternal privileges or means of grace, which men may improve or
not as they choose. Dr. Sumner, Archbishop of Canterbury, in
his work on Apostolical Preaching, takes the other ground, and
maintains that it is an election, not of individuals, but of nations.*
These questions, of course, can be decided only by a careful
examination of the particular passages where the subject is spoken
of, by an investigation of the exact meaning of the words, and of
the context and scope of the passage. It is to be observed, in regard
to this subject in general, that Calvinists do not need to main-
tain— and do not in fact maintain — that wherever an election of
God is spoken of in Scripture, it is an election of individuals, and
an election of individuals to faith and salvation, — or, that there is
nothing said in Scripture of God's choosing nations, or of His
choosing men to outward privileges, and to nothing more. God
undoubtedly does choose nations, to bestow upon them some higher
privileges, both in regard to temporal and spiritual matters, than
He bestows upon others. The condition, both of nations and of
individuals, with respect to outward privileges and the means of
grace, is to be ascribed to God's sovereignty, to the counsel of His
own will ; and Calvinists do not dispute that this doctrine is taught
in Scripture, — nay, they admit that it is the chief thing intended,

* Whately has pointed out this
difference between his views and Dr.
Sumner's, in tlie Introduction to the

fifth edition of his Essays, pp. xxiii.
xxiv.

Sec. XII.] SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR PREDESTINATION. 467

in some of the passages, where God's election is spoken of. But
they maintain these two positions, which, if made out, are quite
sufficient to estabhsh all that they contend for, — namely, first, that
in some cases, where an election of nations, or an election to out-
ward privileges, is spoken of, or at least is included, there is more
implied than is expressly asserted ; or that the argument, either in
its own nature, or from the way in which it is conducted, affords
sufficient grounds for the conclusion, that the inspired writer
believed or assumed an election of individuals to faith and salva-
tion ; — and, secondly, and more particularly, that there are pas-
sages in which the election spoken of is not an election of nations,
or an election to outward privileges, at all ; but only, and ex-
clusively, an election of individuals, and an election of individuals
to sanctification and eternal life, or to grace and glory.

The principal passage to which the first of these positions
has been applied by some Calvinists, though not by all, is the
ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. In this passage it is
conceded by some, that one thing comprehended in the apostle's
statements and arguments is an election of nations to outward
privileges ; while they also think it plain, from the whole scope
of his statements, that he did not confine himself to this point, —
that this was not the only thing he had in view, — and that, in his
exposition of the subject of the rejection of the Jews as the pecu-
liar people of God, and the admission of the Gentiles to all the
privileges of the church, he makes statements, and lays down
principles, which clearly involve the doctrine, that God chooses
men to eternal life according to the counsel of His own will.
The principle of the divine sovereignty is manifested equally in
both cases. There is an invariable connection established, in God's
government of the world, between the enjoyment of outward
privileges, or the means of grace, on the one hand, and faith and
salvation on the other ; in this sense, and to this extent, that the
negation of the first implies the negation of the second. We are
warranted, by the whole tenor of Scripture, in maintaining that
where God, in His sovereignty, withholds from men the enjoyment
of the means of grace, — an opportunity of becoming acquainted
with the only way of salvation, — He at the same time, and by the
same means, or ordination, withholds from them the opportunity
and the power of believing and being saved. These two things
are based upon the same general principle; and thus far are

468 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

directed to the same end. It is not, therefore, in the least to be
wondered at, that the apostle, in discussing the one, should also
introduce the other. The truth is, that no exposition could be
given of God's procedure, in bestowing or withholding outward
privileges, without also taking into account His procedure in
enabling men to improve them ; and the apostle, accordingly, in
the discussion of this subject, has introduced a variety of state-
ments, which cannot, without the greatest force and straining, be
regarded as implying less than this, that as God gives the means
of grace to whom He will, — not from anything in them, as dis-
tinguishing them from others, but of His own good pleasure, — so
He gives to whom He will, according to an election which He
has made, — not on the ground of any worth of theirs, but of Plis
own good pleasure, — the power or capacity of improving aright
the means of grace, and of thereby attaining to salvation. The
truth is, that in the course of the discussion contained in this
chapter, the apostle makes statements which far too plainly and
explicitly assert the Calvinistic doctrine of the election of indi-
viduals to eternal life, to admit of their being evaded or turned
aside by any vague or indefinite considerations derived from the
general object for which the discussion is supposed to be intro-
duced,— even though there was clearer evidence than there is,
that his direct object in introducing it, was merely to explain the
principles connected with the rejection of the Jews from outward
privileges, and the admission of the Gentiles to the enjoyment of
them. All this has been fully proved, by an examination of this
important portion of Holy Writ ; and nothing has yet been de-
vised,— though much ingenuity has been wasted in attempting it,
— that is likely to have much influence, in disproving it, upon
men who are simply desirous to know the true meaning of God's
statements, and are ready to submit their understandings and
their hearts to whatever He has i^vealed.

The apostle, in this passage, not only makes it manifest that
he intended to assert the doctrine which is held by Calvinists
upon the subject of election ; but, further, that he eocpected that
his readers would understand his statements, just as Calvinists
have always understood them, by the objections which he puts
into their mouths, — assuming that, as a matter of course, they
would at once allege, in opposition to what he had taught, that it
represented God as unrighteous, and interfered with men's being

Sec. XII.] SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR PREDESTINATION. 469

responsible, and justly blameable for their actions. These are
just the objections which, at first view, spring up in men's minds,
in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, — the
very objections which, to this day, are constantly urged against it,
— but which have not even a prima facie plausibility, as directed
against the Arminian doctrine, of God's merely choosing men to
outward privileges, and then leaving everything else connected
with their ultimate destiny to depend upon the improvement which
they choose to make of them. A doctrine which does not afford
obvious and plausible grounds for these objections, cannot be that
which the apostle taught ; and this — were there nothing else — is
sufficient to disprove the interpretation put upon the passage by
our opponents. Arminians, indeed, profess to find an inscrutable
mystery — such as might have suggested these objections — in the
different degrees in which outward privileges are communicated
by God to different nations and to different individuals. But
although they assert this, when pressed with the consideration,
that the objections which the apostle intimates might be adduced
against his doctrine implied that there was some inscrutable
mystery attaching to it, — they really do not leave any mystery in
the matter which there is any great difficulty in solving. There
is no great mystery ip the unequal distribution of outward privi-
leges, unless there be an invariable connection between the posses-
sion of outward privileges and the actual attainment of salvation,
at least in the sense formerly explained, — namely, that the nega-
tion of the first implies the negation of the second. If Arminians
were to concede to us this connection, this would no doubt imply
such a mystery as might naturally enough be supposed to suggest
such objections as are mentioned by the apostle. But their
general principles will not allow them to concede this ; for they
must maintain that, whatever differences there may be in men's
outward privileges, all have means and opportunities sufficient to
lead, when duly improved, to their salvation.

Accordingly, Limborch — after attempting to find, in the in-
equality of men's outward privileges, something that might natu-
rally suggest these objections to men's minds, and warrant what
the apostle himself says about the inscrutable mystery involved
in the doctrine which he had been teaching — is obliged, in con-
sistency, to introduce a limitation of this inequality and of its
necessary results, — a limitation which really removes all appear-

470 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

ance of unrighteousness in God, and supersedes the necessity of
appealing to the incomprehensibleness of His judgments, by as-
serting of every man, that " licet caveat gratia salvijica" — by which
he just means the knowledge of the gospel revelation, — "non
tamen ilia gratise inensura destitutus est, quin si ea recte utatnr
sensim in meliorem statum transferri possit, in quo ope gratiae
salutaris ad salutem pervenire queat." * Arminians are unable
to escape from inconsistency in treating of this subject. When
they are dealing with the argument, that the condition of men who
are left, in providence, without the knowledge of the gospel, and
without the means of grace, virtually involves the principle of the
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, they labour to establish a
distinction between the cases, and thus to evade the argument by
denying a connection between the knowledge of the gospel and
salvation, and try to explain the inequality by something in the
conduct of men themselves, instead of resolving it into God's
sovereignty ; and have thus cut away the only plausible ground
for maintaining that this inequality in the distribution of the
means of grace is the inscrutable mystery of which the apostle
speaks, as involved in his doctrine of election. Having laid the
foundations of their whole scheme in grounds which exclude
mystery, and make everything in the divine procedure perfectly
comprehensible, they are unable to get up a mystery, even when
they are compelled to make the attempt, in order to escape from
the inferences which the apostle's statements so plainly sanction.

In short, Arminians must either adopt the Calvinistic prin-
ciple of the invariable connection, negatively, between the enjoy-
ment of the means of grace and the actual attainment of salvation,
or else admit that there is no appearance of ground for adducing
against their doctrine the objections which the apostle plainly in-
timates that his doctrine was sure to call forth ; and in either case,
their attempt to exclude the Calvinistic doctrine of the absolute
election of individuals to faith and salvation, from the ninth
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, can be conclusively proved
to be wholly unsuccessful. '^

Thus it appears that, even if we concede, as some Calvinists
have done, that the more direct object of the apostle, in the ninth
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, is to unfold the principles

* Tlieoh Christ, lib. iv. c. i. sec. x\i.

Sec. XII.] SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR PREDESTINATION. 471

that regulate the rejection of the Jews from outward privileges,
and the admission of the Gentiles to the enjoyment of them, —
this is altoo;ether insufficient to show that he has not here also
plainly and fully asserted, as virtually identical in principle, the
sovereignty of God in choosing some men, according to His mere
good pleasure, to everlasting life, and in leaving the rest, not
worse or more unworthy in themselves, to perish in their natural
condition of guilt and depravity.

I shall now only again advert to the second position formerly
mentioned, as maintained by Calvinists, — namely, that while
there are passages in Scripture which refer to God's electing
nations, and choosing men to the enjoyment of external privileges
or means of grace, there are also many passages which there is
no plausible pretence for evading in this way, — passages which
plainly teach that God — uninfluenced by anything in men them-
selves, or by anything, so far as we know or can know, but the
counsel of His own will — elects some men to faith and holiness,
to perseverance in them and everlasting life, to be conformed to
the image of His Son, and to share at length in His glory. These
passages are to be found not only — as is sometimes alleged — in
the writings of Paul, but in the discourses of our Saviour Himself,
and in the writings of the Apostles Peter and John. It is our
duty to be acquainted with them, and to be able to state and de-
fend the grounds on which it can be shown that, when carefully
examined and correctly understood, they give the clear sanction
of God's word to the doctrines which we profess to believe. The
Calvinistic doctrine of election is stated in Scripture expressly and
by plain implication, — formally and incidentally, — dogmatically
and historically, — as a general truth, unfolding the principle that
regulates God's dealings with men, and also as affording the true
explanation of particular events which are recorded to have taken
place ; and thus there is the fullest confirmation given to all that
is suggested upon this subject by the general views presented to
us concerning the perfections and supremacy of God, — the end
or object of Christ in coming into the world to seek and to save
lost sinners, — and the agency of the Holy Ghost, in applying to
men individually the blessings which Christ purchased for them,
by working faith in them, and thereby uniting them to Christ in
their effectual calling, and in preserving them in safety unto His
everlasting kingdom.

472 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

Sec. 13. — Objections against Predestination.

We now proceed to make some observations upon the objec-
tions which have been commonly adduced against the Calvinistic
doctrine of predestination, and the way in which these objections
have been, and should be, met. There is no call to make such a
division of the objections against Calvinism as we have made of
the arguments in support of it, — namely, into, first, those which
are derived from general principles, or from other connected doc-
trines, taught in Scripture ; and, secondly, those derived from
particular scriptural statements bearing directly and immediately
upon the point in dispute : for it is an important general con-
sideration, with reference to the whole subject of the objections
against the Calvinistic doctrine, that the Arminians scarcely pro-
fess to have anything to adduce against it, derived from particular
or specific statements of Scripture, as distinguished from general
principles, or connected doctrines, alleged to be taught there. We
have shown that, in favour of Calvinistic predestination, we can
adduce from Scripture not only general principles which plainly
involve it, and other doctrines which necessarily imply it, or from
which it can be clearly and certainly deduced, but also specific
statements, in which the doctrine itself is plainly, directly, and im-
mediately taught. Arminians, of course, attempt to answer both
these classes of arguments, and to produce proofs on the other
side. But they do not allege that they can produce passages from
Scripture which contain, directly and immediately, a negation of
the Calvinistic or an assertion of the Arminian view, upon the pre-
cise point of predestination. Their objections against our views,
and their arguments in favour of their own opinions, are wholly
deduced, in the way of inference, from principles and doctrines
alleged to be taught there ; and not from statements which even
appear to tell us, plainly and directly, that the Calvinistic doctrine
upon this subject is false, or that the Arminian doctrine is true.
We profess to prove not only that the Calvinistic doctrine of pre-
destination is necessarily involved in, or clearly deducible from, the
representations given us in Scripture concerning the divine per-
fections and the divine sovereignty, as manifested in the govern-
ment of the world, and especially in the production of faith and
regeneration in all in whom they are produced, but also that there
are statements which, rightly interpreted, plainly and directly tell

Sec. XIII.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 473

us that God made an election or choice among men, not founded
upon anything in the men elected, but on the counsel of His
own will ; and that this was an election of some pien individually
to faith, holiness, and eternal life, and was intended and fitted
to secure these results in all who are comprehended under it.
Arminians, of course, allege that the passages in which we find
this doctrine do not really contain it ; and they allege further, that
there are passages which convey representations of the perfections
and providence of God, — of the powers and capacities of men, —
and of the principles that determine their destiny, — which are
inconsistent with this doctrine, and from which, therefore, its
falsehood may be deduced in the way of inference ; but they do
not allege that there are any passages which treat directly of the
subject of election, and which expressly, or by plain consequence
from these particular statements themselves^ tell us that there is no
such election by God as Calvinists ascribe to Him, — or that there
is such an election, falsely so called, as the Arminians ascribe to
Him. In short, their objections against Calvinistic predestina-
tion, and their arguments in support of their own opinions, are
chiefly derived from the general representations given us in Scrip-
ture concerning the perfections and moral government of God,
and the powers and capacities of men, and not directly, from
what it tells us, upon the subject of predestination itself.

Arminians, indeed, are accustomed to quote largely from
Scripture in opposition to our doctrine and in support of their
own, but these quotations only establish directly certain views in
regard to the perfections and moral government of God, and the
capacities and responsibilities of men ; and from these views, thus
established, they draw the inference that Calvinistic predestination
cannot be true, because it is inconsistent with them. We admit
that they are perfectly successful in establishing from Scripture
that God is infinitely holy, just, and good, — that He is not the
author of sin, and that He is not a respecter of persons, — and that
men are responsible for all their actions, — that they are guilty of
sin, and justly punishable in all their transgressions of God's law,
in all their shortcomings of what He requires of them, — that they
are guilty of peculiarly aggravated sin, in every instance in which
they refuse to comply with the invitations and commands ad-
dressed to them to come to Christ, to repent and turn to God, to
believe in the name of His Son, — and are thus justly responsible

474 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

for their own final perdition. They prove all this abundantly
from Scripture, hut they prove nothing more ; and the only proof
they have to adduce that God did not from eternity choose some
men to everlasting life of His own good pleasure, and tliat He
does not execute this decree in time by giving to these men faith,
holiness, and perseverance, is just that the Calvinistic doctrine
thus denied can be shown, in the way of inference and deduction,
to be inconsistent with the representations given us in Scripture
of God's perfections, and of men's capacities and responsibilities.
There is a class of texts appealed to by Arminians, that may
seem to contradict this observation, though, indeed, the contra-
diction is only in appearance. I refer to those passages, often
adduced by them, which seem to represent God as willing or
desiring the salvation of all men, and Christ as dying with an
intention of saving all men. It will be recollected that I have
already explained that the establishment of the position, that God
did not will or purpose to save all men, and that Christ did not
die with an intention of saving all men, — that is, omnes et sin-
gulos, or all men collectively, or any man individually (for of
course we do not deny that, in some sense, God will have all men
to be saved, and that Christ died for all), — proves directly, and
not merely in the way of deduction or inference, the truth of the
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. And it might seem to fol-
low, upon the ground of the same general principle, — though by a
converse application of it, — that the proof, that God desired and
purposed the salvation of all men, and that Christ died with an
intention of saving all men, directly, and not merely by inference,
disproves the Calvinistic, and establishes the Arminian, view of
predestination. We admit that there is a sense in which these
positions might be taken, the establishment of which would directly
effect this. But then the difference between the two cases lies
here, that the Arminians scarcely allege that they can make out
such a sense of these positions, as would establish directly their
main conclusion, without needing to bring in, in order to establish
it, those general representations of the perfections and moral
government of God, and of the capacities and responsibilities of
men, which we have described as the only real support of their
cause. So far as concerns the mere statements, that God will
have all men to bo saved, and that Christ died for all, they could
scarcely deny that there would be some ground — did we know

Sec. XIII.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 475

nothing more of the matter — for judging, to some extent, of
their import and bearing from the event or result ; and upon the
ground that all men are not saved, in point of fact, while God
and Christ are possessed of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and power,
inferring that these statements were to be understood with some
limitation, either as to the purpose or the act, — that is, as to the
will or intention of God and Christ, — or as to the objects of the
act, that is, the all. Now, in order to escape the force of this very
obvious consideration, and to enable them to establish tliat sense
of their positions, which alone would make them available, as
directly disproving Calvinistic, and establishing Arminian, doc-
trines upon the subject of predestination, they are obliged, as the
whole history of the manner in which this controversy has been
conducted fully proves, to fall back upon the general representa-
tions given us in Scripture, with respect to the perfections and
moral government of God, and the capacities and responsibilities
of men. Thus we can still maintain the general position we have
laid down, — namely, that the scriptural evidence adduced against
Calvinism, and in favour of Arminianism, upon this point, does
not consist of statements bearing directly and immediately upon
the precise point to be proved, but of certain general representa-
tions concerning God and man, from which the falsehood of the
one doctrine, and the truth of the other, are deduced in the way
of inference. It is of some importance to keep this consideration
in remembrance, in studying this subject, as it is well fitted to aid
us in forming a right conception of the true state of the case,
argumentatively, and to confirm the impression of the strength of
the evidence by which the Calvinistic scheme of theology is sup-
ported, and of the uncertain and unsatisfactory character of the
arguments by which it is assailed.

The evidence adduced by the Arminians from Scripture just
proves that God is infinitely holy, just, and good, — that He is
not the author of sin, — that He is no respecter of persons, — and
that a man is responsible for all his actions ; — that he incurs guilt,
and is justly punished for his disobedience to God's law, and for
his refusal to repent and believe the gospel. They infer from
this, that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is false ; while
we maintain — and we are not called upon to maintain more, at this
stage of the argument — that this inference cannot be established ;
and that, in consequence, the proper evidence, direct and inferen-

476 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

tial, in favour of the Calvinistic argument, stands unassailed, and
ought, in right reason, to compel our assent to its truth.

While the objections to the Calvinistic doctrine, from its
alleged inconsistency with the divine perfections and moral
government, and from men's capacities and responsibilities, are the
only real arguments against it, the discussion of these does not
constitute the only materials to be found in the works which have
been written upon the subject. Calvinists have had no small
labour, while conducting the defence of their cause, in exposing
the irrelevancy of many of the objections which have been ad-
duced on the other side, and the misapprehensions and misstate-
ments of their doctrine, on which many of the common objections
against it are based ; and it may be proper to make some observa-
tions upon these points, before we proceed to advert to the method
in which the true and real difficulties of the case ought to be met.

Under the head of pure irrelevancies, are to be classed all the
attempts which have been made by Arminian writers to found an
argument against Calvinism upon the mere proof of the un-
changeable obligation of the moral law, the universal acceptable-
ness to God of holiness, and its indispensable necessity to men's
happiness, — the necessity of faith and repentance, holiness and
perseverance, in order to their admission into heaven. There is
nothing, in these and similar doctrines, which even appears to be
at variance with any of the principles of the Calvinistic system.
We do not deny, or need to deny, or to modify, or to throw into
the background, any one of these positions. The question is not
as to the certainty and invariableness of the connection between
faith and holiness on the one hand, and heaven and happiness on
the other. This is admitted on both sides ; it is assumed and pro-
vided for upon both systems. The question is only as to the way
and manner in which the maintenance of this connection inva-
riably has been provided for, and is developed in fact ; and here
it is contended that the Calvinistic view of the matter is much
more accordant with every consideration suggested by the scrip-
tural representations of man's natural condition, and of the rela-
tion in which, both as a creature and as a sinner, he stands to
God.

It is also a pure irrelevancy to talk, as is often done, as if
Calvinistic doctrines implied, or produced, or assumed, any dimi-
nution of the number of those who are ultimately saved, as com-

Sec. Xlir.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 477

pared with Arminianisrn. A dogmatic assertion as to the com-
parative numbers of those of the human race who are saved and
of those who perish, in the ultimate result of things, forms no
part of Calvinism. The actual result of salvation, in the case of
' a portion of the human race, and of destruction in the case of
the rest, is the same upon both systems, though they differ in the
exposition of the principles by which the result is regulated and
brought about. In surveying the past history of the world, or
looking around on those who now occupy the earth, with the view
of forming a sort of estimate of the fate that has overtaken, or
yet awaits, the generations of their fellow-men (we speak, of
course, of those who have grown up to give indications of their
personal character ; and there is nothing to prevent a Calvinist
believing that all dying in infancy are saved), Calvinists intro-
duce no other principle, and apply no other standard, than just
the will of God, plainly revealed in His word, as to what those
things are which accompany salvation ; and consequently, if, in
doing so, they should form a different estimate as to the compara-
tive results from what Arminians would admit, this could not arise
from anything peculiar to them, as holding Calvinistic doctrines,
but only from their having formed and applied a higher standard
of personal character — that is, of the holiness and morality which
are necessary to prepare men for admission to heaven — than the
Arminians are willing to countenance. And yet it is very com-
mon among Arminian writers to represent Calvinistic doctrines as
leading, or tending to lead, those who hold them, to consign to
everlasting misery a large portion of the human race, whom the
Arminians would admit to the enjoyment of heaven. But it is
needless to dwell longer upon such manifestly irrelevant objec-
tions as these.

It is of more importance to advert to some of the misappre-
hensions and misstatements of Calvinistic doctrine, on which many
of the common objections to it are based. These, as we have
had occasion to mention in explaining the state of the question,
are chiefly connected with the subject of reprobation, — a topic on
which Arminians are fond of dwelling, — though it is very evi-
dent that the course they usually pursue in the discussion of this
subject, indicates anything but a real love of truth. I have
already illustrated the unfairness of the attempts they usually
make, to give priority and prominence to the consideration of

478

THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

reprobation, as distinguished from election ; and have referred to
the fact that the Arminians, at the Synod of Dort, insisted on
beginning with the discussion of the subject of reprobation, and
complained of it as a great hardship, when the synod refused to
concede this.* And they have continued generally to pursue a
similar policy. Whitby, in his celebrated book on the Five Points^
— which has long been a standard work among Episcopalian Ar-
minians, though it is not characterized by any ability, — devotes
the first two chapters to the subject of reprobation. And John
Wesley, in his work entitled Predestination Calmly Considered,]
begins with proving that election necessarily implies reprobation,
and thereafter confines his attention to the latter topic. Their
object in this is very manifest. They know that reprobation can
be more easily misrepresented, and set forth in a light that is fitted
to prejudice men's feelings against it. I have already illustrated
the unfairness of this policy, and have also taken occasion to
advert to the difference between election and reprobation, — the
nature and import of the doctrine we really hold on the latter
subject, — and the misrepresentations which Arminians commonly
make of our sentiments regarding it.

We have now to notice the real and serious objections against
the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination derived from its alleged
inconsistency, — first, with the holiness, justice, and goodness of
God ; and, secondly, with men's responsibility for all their acts of
disobedience or transgression of God's law, including their re-
fusal to repent and believe the gospel, and being thus the true
authors and causes of their own destruction, — the second of these
objections being, in substance, just the same as that which is

* Davenant's Animadversions on
Hoard's GocVs Love to Mankind, p.
49. Dr. Gill's Doctrine of Predesti-
nation stated, in answer to Wesley,
pp. 21-2.

t Works, vol. X. p. 204.

For a fiill discussion of the objec-
tions to the Calvinistic doctrine, see
The Reformers, and the Theology of
the Reformation, p. 531, etc. etc. —
E])us. See also Amesii Medulla
Thcoloyix, lib. i. c. xxv. Mastricht
(who copies Ames), lib. iii. c. iv.
sec. vi. p. 304, Turrettin., Loc. iv.

Qu. xiv. sees, i.-xvii. torn. i. Dave-
nant's Animadversions, passim. Da-
venant, De Prmleslinatione et Re-
prohatione, pp. 113-14, 137, 172-3,
182-8, 196-8, 201-2. Gill's Cause ojf
God and Truth, Part iii. chaps, i. and
ii. Gill's Doctrine of Predestination,
Pictet, La Theologie Chrciienne, liv.
viii. c. vii. p. 557. De Moor, Com-
mentarins, c. vii. sees, xxix.-xxxvi.
torn. ii. pp. 9() 115. Edwards' Re-
marks on Important Theological Con-
troversies, c. iii. sees, xxxv.-vii.

Sec. XIII.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 479

founded upon the commands, invitations, and expostulations
addressed to men in Scripture. The consideration of these ob-
jections has given rise to endless discussions on the most difficult
and perplexing of all topics ; but I shall limit myself to a few
observations concerning it, directed merely to the object of sug-
gesting some hints as to the chief things to be kept in view in the
study of it.

First, there is one general consideration to which I have re-
peatedly had occasion to advert in its bearing upon other subjects,
and which applies equally to this, — namely, that these allegations
of the Arminians are merely objections against the truth of a
doctrine, for which a large amount of evidence, that cannot be
directly answered and disposed of, has been adduced, and that
they ought to be kept in their proper place as objections. The
practical effect of this consideration is, that in dealing with these
allegations, we should not forget that the condition of the argu-
ment is this, — that the Calvinistic doctrine having been established
by a large amount of evidence, direct and inferential, which can-
not be directly answered, all that we are bound to do in dealing
with objections which may be advanced against it, — that is, objec-
tions to the doctrine itself, as distinguished from objections to the
proof, — is merely to show that these objections have not been
substantiated, — that nothing has really been proved by our oppo-
nents, which affords any sufficient ground for rejecting the body
of evidence by which our doctrine has been established. The onus
prohandi lies upon them ; we have merely to show that they have
not succeeded in proving any position which, from its intrinsic
nature, viewed in connection with the evidence on which it rests,
is sufficient to compel us to abandon the doctrine against which
it is adduced. This is a consideration which it is important for
us to keep in view and to apply in all cases to which it is truly
and fairly applicable, as being fitted to preserve the argument
clear and unembarrassed, and to promote the interests of truth.
It is specially incumbent upon us to attend to the true condition
of the argument in this respect, when the objection is founded on,
or connected with, considerations that have an immediate relation
to a subject so far above our comprehension as the attributes
of God, and the principles that regulate His dealings with His
creatures. In dealing with objections derived from this source,
we should be careful to confine ourselves within the limits which

480 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

the logical conditions of the argument point out, lest, by taking a
wider compass, we should be led to follow the objectors in their
presumptuous speculations about matters which are too high for
us. The obligation to act upon this principle, in dealing with,
objections with respect to the subject under consideration, may!
be said to be specially imposed upon us by the example of the
Apostle Paul, who had to deal with the very same objections, and
whose mode of disposing of them should be a guide and model
to us.

We have already had occasion to advert to the fact — as afford-
ing a very strong presumption that Paul's doctrine was Calvinistic
— that he gives us to understand that the doctrine which he taught
in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans was likely, or
rather certain, to be assailed with the very same objections which
have constantly been directed against Calvinism, — namely, that it
contradicted God's justice, and excluded man's responsibility for
his sins and ultimate destiny, — objections which are not likely
to have been ever adduced against Arminianism, but which
naturally, obviously, and spontaneously, spring up in opposition
to Calvinism in the minds of men who are not accustomed to
realize the sovereignty and supremacy of God, and to follow out
what these great truths involve; who, in short, are not in the
habit, in the ordinary train of their thoughts and reflections, of
giving to God that place in the administration of the government
of His creatures to which He is entitled. But we have at present
to do, not with the evidence afforded by the fact that these objec-
tions naturally suggested themselves against the apostle's doctrine,
but with the lesson which his example teaches as to the way in
which they should be dealt with and disposed of. In place of for-
mally and elaborately answering them, he just resolves the whole
matter into the sovereignty and supremacy of God, and men's
incapacity either of frustrating His plans or of comprehending
His counsels. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?" etc. The conduct of the apostle in this matter
is plainly fitted to teach us that we should rely mainly upon
the direct and proper evidence of the doctrine itself ; and, when
satisfied upon that point, pay little regard to objections, however
obvious or plausible they may be, since the subject is one which
we cannot fully understand, and resolves ultimately into an in-
comprehensible mystery, which our powers are unable to fathom.

Sec. XIII.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 481

This is plainly the lesson which the conduct of the apostle is fitted
to teach us ; and it would have been well if both Calvinists and
Arminians had been more careful to learn and to practise it.
Arminians have often pressed these objections by very presump-
tuous speculations about the divine nature and attributes, and
about what it was or was not befitting God, or consistent with
His perfections, for Him to do ; and Calvinists, in dealing with
these objections, have often gone far beyond what the rules of
strict reasoning required, or the apostle's example warranted, — and
have indulged in speculations almost as presumptuous as those of
their opponents. Calvinists have, I think, frequently erred, and
involved themselves in difficulties, by attempting too much in ex-
plaining and defending their doctrines ; and much greater caution
and reserve, in entering into intricate speculations upon this
subject, is not only dictated by sound policy, with reference to
controversial success, but is imposed, as a matter of obligation, by
just views of the sacredness and incomprehensibility of the subject,
and of the deference due to the example of an inspired apostle.
Instead of confining themselves to the one object of showing that
Arminians have not proved that Calvinism necessarily implies any-
thing inconsistent with what we know certainly concerning the
perfections and moral government of God, or the capacities and
responsibilities of man, they have often entered into speculations,
by which they imagined that they could directly and positively
vindicate their doctrines from all objections, and prove them to be
encompassed with few or no difficulties. And thus the spectacle
has not unfrequently been exhibited, on the one hand, of some
shortsighted Arminian imagining that he has discovered a method
of putting the objections against Calvinism in a much more con-
clusive and impressive form than they had ever received before ;
and, on the other hand, of some shortsighted Calvinist imagining
that he had discovered a method of answering the objections much
more satisfactorily than any that had been previously employed ;
while, all the time, the state of the case continued unchanged, —
the real difficulty having merely had its position slightly shifted,
or being a little more thrown into the background at one point,
only to appear again at another, as formidable as ever. The truth
is, that no real additional strength, in substance, can be given to
the objection, beyond what it had as adduced against the apostle,
"Is there unrighteousness with God? why doth He yet find
3— VOL. II. 2 H

482 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

fault, for who hath resisted His will?" and that nothing more
can be done in the way of answering it, than bringing out the
ground which he has suggested and employed, — of resolving all
into the sovereignty and supremacy of God, and the absolute
dependence and utter worthlessness of man, and admitting that
the subject involves an inscrutable mystery, which we are unable
to fathom.

Secondly, it is important to remember that these objections
— if they have any weight, and in so far as they have any — are
directed equally against Calvinistic views of the divine procedure,
as of the divine decrees, — of what God does, or abstains from
doing, in time, in regard to those who are saved and those who
perish, as well as of what He has decreed or purposed to do, or
to abstain from doing, from eternity. Arminians, indeed, as I
formerly explained, do not venture formally to deny that what-
ever God does in time, He decreed or purposed from eternity to
do ; but still they are accustomed to represent the matter in such
a way as is fitted to convey the impression, that some special
and peculiar difficulty attaches to the eternal decrees or purposes
ascribed to God, different in kind from, or superior in degree to,
that attaching to the procedure ascribed to Him in providence.
And hence it becomes important — in order at once to enable us
to form a juster estimate of the amount of evidence in favour of
our doctrine, and of the uncertain and unsatisfactory character
of the objections adduced against it — to have our minds familiar
with the very obvious, but very important, consideration, that
Calvinists do not regard anything as comprehended in the eternal
decrees or purposes of God, above and beyond what they regard
God as actually doing in time in the execution of these decrees.
If it be inconsistent with the perfections and moral government
of God, and with the capacities and responsibilities of men, that
God should form certain decrees or purposes from eternity in
regard to men, it must be equally, but not more, inconsistent
with them, that He should execute these decrees in time. And
anything which it is consistent with God's perfections and man's
moral nature that God should do, or effect, or bring to pass, in
time, it can be no more objectionable to regard Him as having
from eternity decreed to do.

The substance of the actual procedure which Calvinists ascribe
to God in time — in connection with the ultimate destiny of those

Sec. XIII.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 483

who are saved and of those who perish — is this, that in some
men He produces or effects faith, regeneration, holiness, and per-
severance, by an exercise of almighty power which they cannot
frustrate or overcome, and which, certainly and infallibly, pro-
duces the result, — and that the rest of men He leaves in their
natural state of guilt and depravity, withholding from them, or
de facto not bestowing upon them, that almighty and efficacious
grace, without which — as He, of course, well knows — they are
unable to repent and believe, — the inevitable result thus being,
that they perish in their sins. If this be the actual procedure of
God in dealing with men in time, it manifestly introduces no new
or additional difficulty into the matter to say, that He has from
eternity decreed or resolved to do all this ; and yet many persons
seem to entertain a lurking notion — which the common Arminian
mode of stating and enforcing these objections is fitted to cherish
— that, over and above any difficulties that may attach to the
doctrine which teaches that God does this, there is some special
and additional difficulty attaching to the doctrine which repre-
sents Him as having decreed or resolved to do this from eternity.
To guard against this source of misconception and confusion, it is
desirable, both in estimating the force of the evidence in support
of Calvinism, and the strength of the Arminian objections, to
conceive of them as brought to bear upon what our doctrine re-
presents God as doing, rather than upon what it represents Him
as decreeing to do ; while, of course, the Arminians are quite
entitled to adduce, if they can find them, any special objections
against the general position which we fully and openly avow, — -
namely, that all that God does in time. He decreed from eternity
to do. The substance, then, of the objection, is really this, — that
it is inconsistent with the divine perfections and moral govern-
ment of God, and with the capacities and responsibilities of men,
that God should certainly and effectually, by His almighty grace,
produce faith and regeneration in some men, that He may thereby
secure their eternal salvation, and abstain from bestowing upon
others this almighty grace, or from effecting in them those changes,
with the full knowledge that the inevitable result must be, that
He will consign them to everlasting misery as a punishment for
their impenitence and unbelief, as well as their other sins.

Thirdly, we observe that the direct and proper answer to
the Arminian objections is this, — that nothing which Calvinists

484 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

ascribe to God, or represent Him as doing, in connection with
the character, actions, and ultimate destiny, either of those who
ar6 saved or of those who perish, can he proved necessarily to in-
volve anything inconsistent with the perfections of God, or the
principles of His moral government, or with the just rights
and claims, or the actual capacities and responsibilities, of men.
With respect to the alleged inconsistency of our doctrine with
the perfections and moral government of God, this can be main-
tained and defended only by means of assertions, for which no
evidence can be produced, and which are manifestly, in their
general character, uncertain and presumptuous. It is a much
safer and more becoming course, to endeavour to ascertain what
God has done or will do, and to rest in the conviction that all
this is quite consistent with His infinite holiness, justice, good-
ness, and mercy, than to reason back from our necessarily defec-
tive and inadequate conceptions of these infinite perfections, as
to what He must do, or cannot do.

It cannot be proved that we ascribe to God anything incon-
sistent with infinite holiness, because it cannot be shown that our
doctrine necessarily implies that He is involved in the responsi-
bility of the production of the sinful actions of men. It cannot
be proved that we ascribe to Him anything inconsistent with His
justice, because it cannot be shown that our doctrine necessarily
implies that He withholds from any man anything to which that
man has a just and rightful claim. It cannot be proved that
we ascribe to Him anything inconsistent with His goodness and
mercy, because it cannot be shown that our doctrine necessarily
implies that He does not bestow upon men all the goodness and
mercy which it consists with the combined glory of His whole
moral perfections to impart to them, and because it is evidently
unreasonable to represent anything as inconsistent with God's
goodness and mercy which actually takes place under His moral
government, when He could have prevented it if He had chosen.
On such grounds as these, it is easy enough to show, as it has
been often shown, that the allegation that Calvinism ascribes to
God anything necessarily inconsistent with His moral perfections
and government, cannot be substantiated upon any clear and
certain grounds. This is sufficient to prove that the objection is
possessed of no real weight. In consequence, probably, of the
sounder principles of philosophizing now more generally pre*

Sec. XIIL] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 485

valent in this country, the objection to Calvinism — on which its
opponents used to rest so much, derived from its alleged incon-
sistency with the moral perfections of God — has been virtually
abandoned by some of the most distinguished anti-Calvinistic
writers of the present day, — such as Archbishop Whately and
Bishop Copleston.*

It may seem, however, as if that branch of the objection had
a stronger and firmer foundation to rest upon, which is based
upon the alleged inconsistency of our doctrine with what is known
concerning the capacities and responsibilities of men. Man is
indeed better known to us than God ; and there is not the same
presumption in arguing from the qualities and properties of man,
as in arguing from the perfections and attributes of God. It is
fully admitted as a great truth, which is completely established,
and which ought never to be overlooked or thrown into the back-
ground, but to be constantly and strenuously enforced and main-
tained,— that man is responsible for all his actions, — that he incurs
guilt, and is justly punishable whenever he transgresses or comes
short of anything which God requires of men, and, more espe-
cially, whenever he refuses to comply with the command addressed
to him, to repent and turn to God, and to believe in the name of
His Son. All this is fully conceded ; but still it is denied that
any conclusive proof has ever been adduced, that there is any-
thing in all this necessarily inconsistent with what Calvin ists
represent God as doing, or abstaining from doing, in connection
with the character, actions, and dostiny of men. God has so
constituted man, and has placed him in such circumstances, as
to make him fully responsible for his actions. He has made full
provision in man's constitution, not only for his being responsible,
but for his feeling and knowing that he is responsible ; and this
conviction of responsibility is probably never wholly extinguished
m men's breasts. We doubt very much whether there ever was
a man who firmly and honestly believed that he was not respon-
sible for his violations of God's law. There* have been men who
professed to deny this, and have even professed to base their
denial of their own responsibility upon views that resembled those
generally entertained by Calvinists. And Arminians have been

* See The Reformers, and the Theo-
hfiy of the Reformation, p. 458. — Edrs.
AYhately on Difficulties in St. Paul's

Writings, Essay iii. sec. iv. pp. 144-7,
fifth edition, 1845.

486 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

sometimes disposed to catch at such cases, as if they afforded
evidence that the maintenance of Calvinistic doctrines, and the
maintenance of a sense of personal responsibility, were incom-
patible with each other. But the cases have not been very
numerous where men even professed to have renounced a sense
of their own responsibility ; and even where this profession has
been made, there is good ground to doubt whether it really coin-
cided with an actual conviction, decidedly and honestly held,
and was not rather a hypocritical pretence, though mixed, it
may be, with some measure of self-delusion.

It is admitted generally, that it is unsuitable to the very
limited powers and capacities of man to make his perception of
the harmony, or consistency, of doctrines, the test and standard
of their actual harmony and consistency with each other ; and
that, consequently, it is unwarrantable for us to reject a doctrine,
which appears to be established by satisfactory evidence, direct
and appropriate, merely because we cannot perceive how it can
be reconciled with another doctrine, which, when taken by itself,
seems also to be supported by satisfactory evidence. We may
find it impossible to explain how the doctrine of God's fore-ordi-
nation and providence — of His giving or withholding efficacious
grace — can be reconciled, or shown to be consistent, with that of
men's responsibility; but this is no sufficient reason why we should
reject either of them, since they both appear to be sufficiently
established by satisfactory proof, — proof which, when examined
upon the ground of its own^ merits, it seems impossible success-
fully to assail. The proof adduced, that they are inconsistent ivith
each otherj is derived from considerations more uncertain and pre-
carious than those which supply the proof of the truth of each of
them singly and separately; and therefore, in right reason, it should
not be regarded as sufficient to warrant us in rejecting either the
one or the other, though we may not be able to perceive and
develope their harmony or consistency. Let the apparent incon-
sistency, or difficulty of reconciling them, be held a good reason
for scrutinizing rigidly the evidence upon which each rests ; but
if the evidence for both be satisfactory and conclusive, then let
both be received and admitted, even though the difficulty of
establishing their consistency, or our felt inability to perceive and
explain it, remains unaltered.

It is also to be remembered, that Calvinists usually maintain

Sec. XIII.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 487

tliat it has never been satisfactorily proved that anything more
is necessary to render a rational being responsible for his actions
than the full power of doing as he chooses, — of giving full effect
to his own volitions, — a power the possession and exercise of
which does not even seem to be inconsistent with God's fore-
ordination of all events, and His providence in bringing them to
pass; and also that they generally hold that men's inability or
incapacity to will anything spiritually good is a penal infliction or
punishment justly and righteously inflicted upon account of sin,
— a subject which I have already discussed. On these various
grounds, it has been shown that the validity of the Arminian ob-
jections cannot be established, — that their leading positions upon
this subject cannot be proved, — and that, therefore, there is no
sufficient reason, in anything they have adduced, why we should
reject a doctrine so fully established by evidence which, on the
ground of its own proper merits, cannot be successfully assailed.

Fourthly, There is one other important position maintained
by Calvinists upon this subject, which completes the vindication
of their cause, and most fully warrants them to put aside the
Arminian objections as insufficient to effect the object for which
they are adduced. It is this, — tliat the real difficulties connected
with this mysterious subject are not peculiar to the Calvinistic
system of theology, but apply almost, if not altogether, equally
to every other, — that no system can get rid of the difficulties with
which the subject is encompassed, or afford any real explanation
of them, — -and that, at bottom, the real differences among different
theories merely mark the different positions in which the difficul-
ties are placed, without materially affecting their magnitude or
their solubility. It is very plain that God and men, in some way,
concur or combine in forming man's character, in producing
man's actions, and in determining man's fate. This is not a doc-
trine peculiar to any one scheme of religion professedly founded
on the Christian revelation, but is common to them all, — nay, it
must be admitted by all men who do not take refuge in atheism.
It is very plain, likewise, that the explanation of the way and
manner in which God and men thus combine or concur in pro-
ducing these results, involves mysteries which never have been
fully solved, and which, therefore, we are warranted in supposing,
cannot be solved by men in their present condition, and with
their existing capacities and means of knowledge. This difficulty

488 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

consists chiefly in this, tliat when we look at the actual results,
— including, as these results do, men's depravity by nature, sin-
ful actions, and everlasting destruction, — we are unable to com-
prehend or explain how God and man can both be concerned in
the production of them, while yet each acts in the matter con-
sistently with the powers and qualities which he possesses, — God
consistently with both His natural and His moral attributes, — and
man consistently with both his entire dependence as a creature,
and his free agency as a responsible being. This is the great
mystery which we cannot fathom ; and all the difficulties con-
nected with the investigation of religion, or the exposition of the
relation between God and man, can easily be shown to resolve or
run up into this. This is a difficulty which attaches to every
system except atheism, — which every system is bound to meet
and to grapple with, — and which no system can fully explain
and dispose of ; and this, too, is a position which Archbishop
W^hately has had the sagacity and the candour to perceive and
admit.*

In the endless speculations which have been directed pro-
fessedly to the elucidation of this mysterious subject, there has
been exhibited some tendency to run into opposite extremes, — to
give prominence to God's natural, to the comparative omission or
disregard of His moral, attributes, — to give prominence to man's
dependence as a creature, to the comparative omission or disre-
gard of his free agency as a responsible being, — or the reverse.
The prevailing tendency, however, has been towards the second
of these extremes, — namely, that of excluding God, and exalting
man, — of giving prominence to God's moral attributes, or rather
those of them which seem to come least into collision with man's
dignity and self-sufficiency, and to overlook His infinite power,
knowledge, and wisdom, and His sovereign supremacy, — to exalt
man's share in the production of the results in the exercise of
his own powers and capacities, as if he were, or could be, inde-
pendent of God. Experience abundantly proves that the general
tendency of men is to lean to this extreme, and thus to rob God
of the honour and glory which belong to Him. This, therefore,
is the extreme which should be most carefully guarded against ;
and it should be guarded against just by implicitly receiving

* Eiisays, 5th edition, p. 146.

Sec. XIII.] OBJECTIONS AGAINST PREDESTINATION. 489

whatever doctrine upon this subject seems to rest upon satisfac-
tory evidence, — however humbling it may be to the pride and
self-sufficiency of man, and however unable we may be to per-
ceive its consistency with other doctrines which we also believe.

The pride and presumption, the ignorance and depravity, of
man, all lead him to exclude God, and to exalt himself, and to
go as far as he can in the way of solving all mysteries ; and both
these tendencies combine in leading the mass of mankind to lean
towards the Arminian rather than the Calvinistic doctrine upon
this subject. But neither can the mystery be solved, nor can
man be exalted to that position of independence and self-suffi-
ciency to which he aspires, unless God be wholly excluded, un-
less His most essential and unquestionable perfections be denied,
unless His supreme dominion in the government of His creatures
be altogether set aside. The real difficulty is to explain how
moral evil should, under the government of a God of infinite
holiness, power, and wisdom, have been introduced, and have
prevailed so extensively ; and especially — for this is at once the
most awful and mysterious department of the subject — how it
should have been permitted to issue, in fact, in the everlasting
misery and destruction of so many of God's creatures. It is
when we realize what this, as an actual result, involves ; and
when we reflect on what is implied in the consideration, that
upon any theory this state of things does come to pass under
the government of a God of infinite knowledge and power, who
foresaw it all, and could have prevented it all, if this had been
His will, that we see most clearly and most impressively the
groundlessness and the presumption of the objections commonly
adduced against the Calvinistic scheme of theology; and that
we feel most effectually constrained to acquiesce in the apostle's
resolution of the whole matter, " O the depth of the riches both
of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are His
judgments, and His ways past finding out ! For who hath known
the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been His counsellor 1 or who
hath given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again ?
For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things, to
whom be glory for ever." *

* Rom. xi. 33-36. See this subject I Theolorjy of the Reformation, p. 468,
referred to in The Reformers, and the \ etc. — Edes.

490 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

Sec. 14. — Perseverance of Saints.

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, or of believers,
is to be regarded as an essential part of the Calvinistic scheme of
theology. That it is so is plain, from the nature of the case, — the
obvious necessary connection of the different doctrines of Cal-
vinism with each other, — and also from the fact that the doctrine
has been held by all Calvinists, and denied by almost all Arminians.
There are two apparent exceptions to this historical statement ;
and it may be proper to advert to them, as they are the cases of
two no less important persons than Augustine and Arminius.

Augustine seems to have thought that men who were true
believers, and who were regenerated, so as to have been really
brought under the influence of divine truth and religious prin-
ciple, might fall away and finally perish ; but then he did not think
that those persons who might, or did, thus fall away and perish
belonged to the number of those who had been predestinated, or
elected, to life. He held that all those who were elected to life
must, and did, persevere, and thus attain to salvation. It was of
course abundantly evident, that if God chose some men, absolutely
and unconditionally, to eternal life, — and this Augustine firmly
believed, — these persons must, and would, certainly be saved.
Whether persons might believe and be regenerated who had not
been predestinated to life, and who, in consequence, might fall
away, and thereby fail to attain salvation, is a distinct question ;
and on this question Augustine's views seem to have been obscured
and perverted by the notions that then generally prevailed about
the objects and effects of outward ordinances, and especially by
something like the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which has
been, perhaps, as powerful and extensive a cause of deadly error
as any doctrine that Satan ever invented. Augustine's error, then,
lay in supposing that men might believe and be regenerated who
had not been elected to life, and might consequently fail of ulti-
mate salvation ; but he never did, and never could, embrace any
notion so irrational and inconsequential, as that God could have
absolutely chosen some even to life, and then permitted them to
fall away and to perish ; and the negation of this notion, which
Augustine never held, constitutes the sum and substance of what
Calvinists have taught upon the subject .of perseverance.

Arminius never wholly renounced the doctrine of the certain

Sec. XIV.] PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 491

perseverance of all believers, even after he had abandoned all the
other principles of Calvinism, but spoke of this as a point on
which he had not fully made up his mind, and which, he thought,
required further investigation, — thus virtually bearing testimony
to the difficulty of disposing of the scriptural evidence on which
the doctrine rests. His immediate followers, likewise, professed
for a time some hesitation upon this point ; but their contemporary
opponents * do not seem to have given them much credit for sin-
cerity in the doubts which they professed to entertain regarding
it, because, while they did not for a time directly and explicitly
support a negative conclusion, the whole current of their state-
ments and arguments seemed plainly enough to indicate that they
had already renounced the generally received doctrine of the
Reformed churches upon this subject. They very soon, even
before the Synod of Dort, openly renounced the doctrine of the
perseverance of the saints, along with the other doctrines of Cal-
vinism ; and I am not aware that any instance has since occurred,
in which any Calvinist has hesitated to maintain this doctrine, or
any Arminian has hesitated to deny it.

This doctrine is thus stated in our Confession of Faith : f
'' They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called
and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall
away from the state of grace ; but shall certainly persevere therein
to the end, and be eternally saved." Little needs to be said in
explanation of the meaning of these statements. The subject of
the proposition is a certain class of persons who are marked out
by two qualities, — namely, that God has accepted them in His
Beloved, and that He has effectually called and sanctified them by
His Spirit. This implies that they are persons on whose state and
character an important change has taken place. As to their state,
they have passed from that condition of guilt and condemnation
in which all men lie by nature, into a condition of favour and
acceptance with God, so that their sins are pardoned, and they are
admitted into God's family and friendship, upon the ground of
what Christ has done and suffered for them. As to their charac-
ter, they have been renewed in the spirit of their minds by the
operation of the Holy Ghost ; their natural emnity to God, and

* Amesii Coronis, p. 285. And- I t C. xvii. s. i.

synodalia, p. 292. |

492 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

their depravity, have been subdued ; holy principles have been
implanted in their hearts ; and they have entered upon a course
of new obedience. These changes are manifestly represented in
Scripture as being, wherever they have taken place, inseparably
connected with faith in Christ Jesus ; so that the persons here
described are just true believers in Christ, — men who have been
born again of the word of God, through the belief of the truth.
Of all such persons it is asserted that they can neither totally nor
finally fall away from the state of grace ; that is, from the con-
dition of acceptance with God, and of personal holiness, into which
they have been brought, but shall certainly persevere therein, — that
is, in the state or condition previously described, — and be eternally
saved. It is asserted, not merely that none of these do, in point
of fact, fall away, and that all of them, in point of fact, persevere
and are saved ; but that they cannot fall away, — some effectual and
infallible provision having been made to prevent this result.

The statement, that they can neither totally nor finally fall
away, has reference to a notion which has been broached, espe-
cially by some Lutheran writers, who taught that believers or
saints might fall away totally, though not finally. The notion
which these persons seem to have entertained was something of
this sort, — that men who had once believed might sin so much as
to forfeit and lose altogether the privileges of the condition, both
as to state and character, into which they had been brought by
believing, — so as to become, in so far as concerned the favour
and acceptance with which God regarded them, and the moral
principles by which, for the time, they were animated, as bad as
they were before they believed ; but that all such persons would
be again brought, de novo, into a state of grace, and that thus
they might fall away or apostatize, totally, but not finally. This
notion of a total, but not final, falling away, is evidently derived
much more from observation of what sometimes takes place in the
church, than from the study of God's word. Cases do sometimes
occur, in which believers fall into heinous sins ; and the persons to
whose views we are now referring, seem to think that such cases
cannot be explained, except upon the supposition that these sins
imply, or produce, a total falling away from a state of grace, while
they so far defer to the general strain of Scripture as to admit,
that all in whom faith and regeneration have been once produced
will certainly be recovered from their apostasy, and will be eter-

Sec. XIV.] PERSEVEEANCE OF SAINTS. 493

nally saved. It was in opposition to this notion that our Confes-
sion asserted that believers eannot fall away totally any more than
finally, — meaning thereby, that when a state of grace, as including
both acceptance with God and the existence and operation of holy
moral principles in a nature renewed, has been once produced, it
is never again totally lost, so as that these persons are regarded
and treated by God as aliens and enemies, like those who are still
living in their natural condition of guilt, or ever become again as
thoroughly depraved, in point of principle and motive, — as destitute
of all holiness of nature and character, — as they once were, how-
ever heinous the particular sins into which they may have fallen.
This doctrine, of the perseverance of saints or believers, is
evidently a necessary and indispensable part of the Calvinistic
system of theology, — being clearly involved in, or deducible from,
the other fundamental doctrines of the system, which we have
already considered. If it be true that God has, from eternity,
absolutely and unconditionally chosen some men, certain persons,
to eternal life, these men assuredly will all infallibly be saved.
If it be also true that He has arranged that no man shall be
saved, unless upon earth he be brought into a state of grace,
unless he repent and believe, and persevere in faith and holiness.
He will assuredly give to all whom He has chosen to life faith
and holiness, and will infallibly secure that they shall persevere
therein unto the end. And as it is further taught by Calvinists,
that God produces in some men faith and conversion in the
execution of His decree of election, just because He has decreed
to save these men, — and does so for the purpose of saving them, —
the wliole of what they teach under the head of perseverance is
thus effectually provided for, and thoroughly established, — faith
and regeneration being never produced in any except those whose
ultimate salvation has been secured, and whose perseverance, there-
fore, in faith and hohness must be certain and infallible. All
this is too plain to require any illustration ; and Calvinists must
of course, in consistency, take the responsibility of maintaining the
certain perseverance of all believers or saints, — of all in whom faith
and holiness have been once produced. It is not quite so clear
and certain that Arminians are bound, in consistency, to deny this
doctrine, — though the general spirit and tendency of their system
are adverse to it. They might perhaps, without inconsistency,
hold that it is possible, that all who have been enabled to repent

494 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

and believe will, in point of fact, persevere and be saved ; but as
they teach that men, in the exercise of their own free-will, can
resist and frustrate the grace of God's Spirit, exerted in strength
sufficient to produce faith and conversion, they could scarcely avoid
maintaining the possibility^ at least, of their throwing it off after
it had taken possession of them, and thus finally falling away.

Their general practice is, to give much prominence, in dis-
cussion, to this subject of perseverance; and they think that
this affords them a good opportunity of bringing out, in the most
palpable and effective way, their more popular objections against
the Calvinistic system in general, and also of supplying their lack
of direct scriptural evidence upon the precise question of predes-
tination, by adducing, in opposition to that doctrine, the proof
they think they can bring forward from Scripture, that believers
and saints — all of whom Calvinists regard as having been elected
to life — may and do fall away, and perish.

We may advert to these two points, — namely, first, to the
form in which, in connection with this doctrine, Arminians
commonly put the objection against Calvinism generally ; and,
secondly, to the evidence against it which the scriptural state-
ments upon this particular topic are alleged to furnish.

Their objection, of course, is, that if those who have been
once brought into a state of grace cannot finally fall away and
perish, then they may, and probably will — this being the natural
tendency of such a doctrine — live in careless indifference and
security, and be little concerned to avoid sin, since it cannot
affect injuriously their everlasting condition. Now this objec-
tion is just a specimen of a general mode of misrepresentation, to
which Arminians very commonly resort in this whole contro-
versy,— that, namely, of taking a part of our doctrine, disjoining
it from the rest, and then founding an objection upon this parti-
cular and defective view of it. The great general j)rinciple which
we hold and teach, that the means are fore-ordained as well as the
end, affords a complete answer to the objection. But we may
now advert more particularly to the way in which this general
principle bears upon the special aspect of the objection, as brought
out in connection with the doctrine of perseverance. The per-
severance which we contend for — and which, we say, is effec-
tually provided for and secured — is just a perseverance in faith
and holiness, — a continuing stedfast in believing, and in bringing

Sec. XIV.] PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 495

forth all the fruits of righteousness. Perseverance is not merely
a continuing for some time upon earth after faith and regenera-
tion have been produced, and then being admitted, as a matter of
course, to heaven, without any regard to the moral history of the
intervening period ; it is a perseverance in the course on which
men have entered, — a perseverance unto the end in the exercise
of faith and in the practice of holiness. This, we say, has been
provided for, and will be certainly effected. The case of a man
who appeared to have been brought to faith and repentance, but
who afterwards fell into habitual carelessness and sin, and died in
this condition, is not a case which exhibits and illustrates the
tendency and effects of our doctrine of perseverance, rightly
understood, and viewed in all its extent ; on the contrary, it con-
tradicts it ; and if it were clearly established to have become a
real case of faith and conversion, it would, we admit, disprove it.
In regard to all such cases, it is incumbent upon us, not merely
from the necessity of defending our doctrine against objections,
hut from the intrinsic nature of the doctrine itself^ to assert and
maintain that true faith and regeneration never existed, and
therefore could not be persevered in. We simply look away from
the partial and defective view of our doctrine given by our
opponents, — we just take in the whole doctrine as we are accus-
tomed to explain it ; and we see at once, that the supposed case,
and the objection founded upon it, are wholly irrelevant, — that our
real doctrine has nothing to do with it. If our doctrine be true,
then no such case could possibly occur, where true faith had once
been produced, because that very doctrine implies that persever-
ance in this faith and in the holiness which springs from if, hds
been provided for and secured ; and if a case of their falling
away could be established with regard to a believer, then the fair
inference would be, not that our doctrine produced, or tended to
produce, such a result, but that the doctrine was unfounded.

As the objection derived from the alleged tendency of our
doctrine thus originates in a partial or defective view of what the
doctrine is, so, in like manner, any such abuse or perversion of
the doctrine by those who profess to believe and to act upon it,
must originate in the same source. They can abuse it, to en-
courage themselves in carelessness and sin, only when they look
at a part of the doctrine, and shut out the whole, — when they
forget that the means have been fore-ordained as well as the end,

496 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXY.

— that the thing wliich God has promised and provided for, is
just perseverance in the exercise of faith and in the practice of
holiness ; and that He has provided for securing this, just because
He has established an invariable connection between perseverance
unto the end in faith and holiness, as a means, and eternal salva-
tion, as the end. The true way to judge of the practical tendency
and result of a doctrine, is to conceive of it as fully and correctly
understood in its real character, in its right relations, and in its
whole extent, — to conceive of it as firmly and cordially believed,
and as judiciously and intelligently applied ; and then to consider
what effect it is fitted to produce upon the views, motives, and
conduct of those who so understand, believe, and apply it. When
the doctrine of the perseverance of believers is tested in this way,
it can be easily shown, not only to have no tendency to encourage
men in carelessness and indifference about the regulation of their
conduct, but to have a tendency directly the reverse. In virtue
of the principle of the means being fore-ordained as well as the
end, and of an invariable connection being thus established be-
tween perseverance in faith and holiness on the one hand, and
salvation on the other, it leaves all the ordinary obligations and
motives to stedfastness and diligence — to unshaken and increas-
ing holiness of heart and life, and to the use of all the means
which conduce to the promotion of this result, — to say the very
least, wholly unimpaired, to operate with all the force which
properly belongs to them. The position of a man who has been
enabled by God's grace to repent and believe, — who is persuaded
that this change has been effected upon him, — and M'ho, in con-
sequence, entertains the conviction that he will persevere and
be saved, viewed in connection with other principles plainly re-
vealed, and quite consistent with all the doctrines of Calvinism, is
surely fitted to call into operation the strongest and most powerful
motives derived from every consideration relating to God and to
himself, — his past history, his present situation and prospects,
all combining to constrain him to run in the way of God's com-
mandments with enlarged heart. And then, it is further to be
remembered, that the doctrine which he believes necessarily in-
volves in it, as a part of itself, — or at least as an immediate con-
sequence,— that he can have no good ground for believing that he
is in a condition of safety, and warranted to entertain the assur-
ance of eternal happiness, unless he is holding fast the profession

Sec. XIV.] PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 497

of his faith without wavering, — unless he is continuing stedfast in
the paths of new obedience, dying more and more unto sin, and
living more and more unto righteousness.

The objection, about the tendency of this doctrine of the
certain perseverance of believers to encourage them to live in
carelessness and sin, on the ground that their eternal welfare
has been secured, further assumes that believers — men who have
been brought, by God's almighty power, from darkness to light,
— whose eyes have been opened to behold the glory of God in
the face of His Son, — who have been led to see and feel that
they are not their own, but bought with a price, even the precious
blood of God's own Son — are still wholly incapable of being in-
fluenced by any motives but those derived from a selfish and
exclusive regard to their own safety and happiness. And even
if we were to concede all this, and to descend, for the sake of
argument, to the low moral level on which our opponents are
accustomed to take their stand in discussing such questions,
we could still present to believers sufficiently strong motives, —
addressed exclusively to their selfishness, — to abstain from all
sin, even without needing to urge that, by sinning, they would
forfeit their eternal happiness ; for our Confession teaches, in
full accordance with the word of God, that though believers
cannot totally and finally fall away, but shall certainly per-
severe and be saved, yet that " nevertheless they may, through
the temptations of Satan and the world, the prevalency of cor-
ruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their
preservation, fall into grievous sins ; and for a time continue
therein : whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His
Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces
and comforts ; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences
wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judg-
ments upon themselves,"* — a statement which is true, in some
measure, of all the sins which believers commit, and not merely of
the "grievous sins" into which they sometimes fall.

But we shall not dwell longer upon this topic, and proceed
to notice the other points to which we referred, — namely, the
scriptural evidence bearing directly and immediately upon this
particular doctrine. Calvinists contend that this doctrine, besides

* C. xvii. s. iii.
3 — VOL. II. 2 1

498 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

being necessarily involved in, or clearly deducible from, the great
truths which we have already considered and established, has its
own proper,* direct Scripture evidence, amply sufficient to estab-
lish it as a distinct and independent truth. They undertake to
prove, by direct and appropriate Scripture evidence, the position
that those who have been brought by faith and conversion into a
state of grace, cannot finally fall away from it, but shall certainly
persevere to the end, and b-: eternally saved ; and if this can be
proved as a distinct and independent truth, it manifestly tends
very directly and very powerfully to confirm the whole of the
leading principles of the Calvinistic theology, — to swell the mass
of evidence by which Calvinism is proved to be indeed the doctrine
of the word of God. Arminians, however, as we have intimated,
profess to produce from Scripture direct proof of the falsehood
of our doctrine of perseverance, which, as we formerly explained,
they scarcely profess to do in regard to the doctrine of election ;
and indeed they rest very much upon the proof they adduce of
the falsehood of our doctrine of perseverance as the leading direct
scriptural evidence they have to bring forward against the whole
Calvinistic system. We are quite willing to concede to them, that if
they can really prove from Scripture that any men who have once
believed and been born again have fallen away and finally perished,
or that they may fall away and perish, — no certain and effectual
provision having been made by God to prevent this, — the doctrine
that God, out of His owp good pleasure, elected some men to ever-
lasting life, must be abandoned ; for we will not undertake to de-
fend Augustine's position, that some men who believed and were
converted might fall, though none who were elected could do so.
The Scripture evidence which Arminians produce in opposition
to our doctrine, and in support of their own, upon this subject of
perseverance, is much stronger than what they have been able to
bring forward on any other topic involved in this whole contro-
versy ; and it must, in fairness, be allowed to possess considerable
plausibility. There are passages in Scripture, which, taken in
their most obvious sense, do seem to imply that men who once
believed and were converted, did, or might, fall away and finally
perish ; and if these statements stood alone, they might perhaps
be held sufficient to warrant the reception of this doctrine. We
have, however, in Scripture, a large body of conclusive evidenc
in support of the doctrine of the certain perseverance of all

Sec. XIV.] PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 499

Hevers, — evidence both direct and inferential, — evidence which
cannot be answered and explained away, — evidence greatly su-
perior in strength, extent, and explicitness, to any that can be
adduced upon the other side. The proper question, of course, is,
What is the doctrine which Scripture really teaches upon this
subject, when we take into account? the whole of the materials
Avhich it furnishes, and embody the united substance of them all,
making due allowance for every position which it really sanc-
tions? Now, Calvinists undertake to establish the following pro-
positions upon this subject : first, that Scripture contains clear
and conclusive evidence of the certain, final perseverance of all
who have ever been united to Christ through faith, and have been
born again of His word, — conclusive evidence that they shall
never perish, but shall have eternal life ; secondly, that there is
no sufficient scriptural evidence to warrant a denial of this doc-
trine, or to establish the opposite one ; and that there is no great
difficulty — no great force or straining being required for the
purpose — in showing that the passages on which the Arminians
found, may be so explained as to be consistent with our doctrine,
while it is impossible — without the most unwarrantable and un-
natural force and straining — to reconcile with their doctrine the
scriptural statements which we adduce in support of ours.

I cannot notice the body of scriptural proof, derived at once
from great general j)rinciples and from numerous and explicit
statements, bearing directly and immediately upon the point in
dispute, by which our doctrine is conclusively established ; but I
may briefly advert to the way in which we dispose of the evidence
which is adduced by the Arminians on the other side, and which,
at first sight, possesses considerable plausibility. It consists, of
course, in general, of statements which seem to assert directly,
or by plain implication, that men who have been brought into a
state of grace, — under the influence of true faith and genuine
holiness, — have fallen, or may fall, away from it, and finally
perish. Now let it be remarked, what they are bound to prove
in regard to any scriptural statements which they adduce for this
purpose, — namely, first, that they clearly and necessarily imply
that the persons spoken of were once true believers, had been
really renewed in the spirit of their minds ; and, secondly, that
these persons did, or might, finally perish. They must prove
both these positions ; and if they fail in proving either of theni;,

500 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

their argument falls to the ground. Both must be proved to
apply, as matter of fact, or at least of undoubted actual possi-
bility, to the very same persons. In regard to some of the passages
they adduce, we undertake to show that neither of these positions
can be established in regard to the persons of whom they speak ;
but this is not necessary to our argument. It is quite sufficient
if we can show that no conclusive evidence has been adduced,
either that these persons were ever true believers, or else that they
did or could finally perish. W^hen either of these positions has
been established, we are entitled to set the passage aside, as wholly
inadequate to serve the purpose of our opponents, — as presenting
no real or even apparent inconsistency with our doctrine. And,
in this way, many of the passages on which the Arminians base
their denial of the doctrine of perseverance, can be disposed of
without difficulty.

There is, however, another class of passages from Scripture
adduced by them, to which these considerations do not so directly
apply. These are the warnings against apostasy, or falling away,
addressed to believers, which, it is argued, imply a possibility of
their falling away. Now we do not deny that there is a sense in
which it is possible for believers to fall away, — that is, when they
are viewed simply in themselves, — with reference to their own
powers and capacities, — and apart from God's purpose or design
with respect to them. Turretine, in explaining the state of the
question upon this point, says : " Non quaeritur de possibilitate
dejiciendi a parte homhiis, et in sensu diviso. Nemo enim negat
fideles in se spectatos pro mutabilitate et infirmitate naturae suae,
non tantum deficere posse, sed nihil posse aliud sibi relictos,
accedentibus inprimis Satanse et mundi tentationibus. Sed a
parte Dei, quoad ejus propositum, in sensu composito, et ratione
ipsius eventus, quo sensii impossibilem dicimus eorum defec-
tionem, non absolute et simpliciter, sed hypothetic^ et secundum
quid." * It is only in this sense — which we admit, and which is
not inconsistent with our doctrine — that a possibility of falling
away is indicated in the passages referred to; their proper primary
effect evidently being just to bring out, in the most impressive
way, the great principle of the invariablenoss of the connection
which God has established between perseverance, as opposed to

* Loc. XV. Qu. xvi. s. iv., De Perseverantia Fidei.

Sec. XV.] SOCINIANISM—ARMINIANISM— CALVINISM. 501

apostasy, as a means, and salvation as an end ; and thus to operate
as a means of effecting the end which God has determined to
accompHsh, — of enabhng believers to persevere, or preservino-
them from apostasy ; and to effect this in entire accordance with
the principles of their moral constitution, by producing constant
humility, watchfulness, and diligence.

In regard to apparent cases of the actual final apostasy of be-
lievers occurring in the church, we have no difficulty in disposing
of them. The impossibility of men knowing with certainty the
character of their fellow-men individually, so as to be thoroughly
assured that they are true believers, is too well established, both
by the statements of Scripture and by the testimony of experience,
to allow us to hesitate about confidently applying the principle of
the apostle, which indeed furnishes a key to solve many of the
difficulties of this whole subject : " They went out from us, but
they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they would have
continued with us." *

The impossibility of believers falling away totally does not so
directly result from principles peculiarly Calvinistic, which bear
rather upon falling away finally^ but from scriptural views of
regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and of the
relation into which they have been brought to God and Christ.
To adopt the language of the Westminster Confession, " This
perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will,
but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from
the free and unchangeable love of God the Father ; upon the
efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abid-
ing of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them ; and the
nature of the covenant of grace : from all which ariseth also the
certainty and infallibility thereof." f

Sec. 1 5. — Socinianism — A rminianism — Calvinism.

We have now completed the survey of the Arminian as well
as the Socinian controversies ; and in surveying these contro-
versies, we have had occasion to direct attention to almost all the
most important departments of Christian theology. Socinianism

* 1 John ii. 19. ism, see The Reformers, and the Theo-

t C. xvii. sec. ii. For the practical logy of the Reformation, p. 525.—
application of the doctrines of Calvin- Edrs.

502 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

is not only a denial of all that is most peculiar and fundamental
in the system of revealed religion, but a positive assertion of a
system of doctrine diametrically opposed to that which God has
made known to us ; while Arminianism is an attempt to set up a
scheme intermediate between that which involves a rejection of
almost all that the Bible was intended to teach, and the system of
Calvinism, which alone corresponds with the scriptural views of
the guilt, depravity, and helplessness of man, — of the sovereign
supremacy and the all-sufficient efficacious agency of God, — the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, — in the accomplishment of his
salvation. There are some general considerations naturally sug-
gested by the survey we have taken of these three schemes of
doctrine, — the Sociuian, the Arminian, and the Calvinistic, —
which seem fitted to assist us in forming a right estimate of the
different views of the schemes of theology that have been main-
tained by men who all professed to believe in the divine authority
of the sacred Scriptures. There are chiefly three considerations
of this sort to which I would advert.

They are these : first, that in the scheme of Christian theo-
logy there is a class of doctrines which occupy a higher platform,
or are possessed of greater intrinsic importance, than what are
commonly called the peculiarities of Calvinism ; secondly, that
Arminianism, in its more Pelagian form, differs little, practically,
from Socinianism, and would be more consistent if it were openly
to deny the divinity and atonement of Christ, and the necessity
of the special agency of the Holy Spirit ; and, thirdly, that Ar-
minianism, in its more evangelical form, besides being chargeable
with important errors and defects, is inconsistent with itself, since
the important scriptural truths which it embodies cannot be held
consistently, except in connection with the peculiar doctrines of
Calvinism. I shall merely make an observation or two in ex-
planation of these three positions.

The first is, that in the scheme of Christian theology there is
a class of doctrines which may be said to occupy a higher platform
than what are commonly called the peculiarities of Calvinism.
The doctrines here referred to are, of course, those taught by
orthodox Lutherans and by evangelical Arminians, as well as by
Calvinists, concerning the depravity of man by nature, — the per-
son and work of Christ, — and the agency of the Holy Spirit in
the work of regeneration and sanctification. The Bible was given

Sec. XV.] SOCINIANISM—ARMINIANISM— CALVINISM. 503

us mainly to unfold to us the lost and ruined state of man by-
nature, and the existence, character, and operation of that provi-
sion which God has made for saving sinners. Everything which
is taught in Scripture it is equally incumbent upon us, as a matter
of duty or obligation, to believe, as every statement rests equally
upon the authority of God. But there is a great difference, in
point of intrinsic importance, among the many truths of different
kinds and classes taught us in Scripture; and the general measure
of their relative importance — though we are very incompetent to
apply it, and should be very careful lest we misapply it — is just
the directness and immediateness of the relation in which they
stand towards that which we have described as the great leading
object of revelation, — namely, making known the ruin and the
recovery of mankind. The doctrines which directly and imme-
diately unfold these topics occupy a position, in point of intrinsic
importance, which is not shared by any others; and these doctrines
are just those which tell us of the universal guilt and entire de-
pravity of man, — of the sovereign mercy of God, in providing for
men's salvation, — of the person and work of the Son, and the way
in which His vicarious work bears upon the justification of sin-
ners,— and of the operation of the Holy Spirit, in applying to
men individually the benefits which Christ purchased for them,
and preparing them for heaven, by producing faith in them, and
by regenerating and sanctifying their natures.

Now there can be no reasonable doubt that there have been,
and that there are, men who have entertained views upon all these
subjects, which we must admit to be scriptural and correct, —
because, in the main, the same as we ourselves believe, — who yet
have rejected the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism. The substance
of what we assert is this, — that men who agree with us in holding
scriptural views upon these points, while they reject the peculiar
doctrines of Calvinism, do agree with us on subjects that are more
important and fundamental, and that ought to occupy a more
prominent place in the ordinary course of public instruction than
those in which they differ from us. They hold the truth upon
those points which it was the great leading object of revelation to
teach us, — which bear most directly and immediately upon the
exposition of the way of a sinner's salvation, — which ought to
occupy the most frequent and the most prominent place in the
preaching of the gospel, — and which God most commonly blesses

504 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

for the conversion of sinners. Their consistency^ in holding scrip,
tural doctrines upon these points, while they reject the peculia
doctrines of Calvinism, is not at present the question ; that will
be adverted to afterwards : the fact that they do hold them is
undoubted, and it ought to be fully admitted and fairly estimated.
It is not, indeed, strictly correct to say that they hold purelj
scriptural views upon all these most important topics. We hav€
had occasion, in regard to every one of them, to point out sora«
thing erroneous, or at least defective, in their sentiments or ii
pressions ; and we have often asserted that everything, howevel
apparently insignificant, which either transgresses or comes short
of what Scripture teaches upon these points, is sinful and dan-
gerous. Such, indeed, is the harmony subsisting among all the
branches of scriptural doctrine, that truth or error in regard to
any one of them almost unavoidably produces truth or error, in a
greater or less degree, in regard to the rest, — that, in short, none
but Calvinists hold views which are, in all respects^ scriptural, in
regard to any of the leading doctrines of Christianity. Still the
views of the men to whom we refer are, in regard to these funda-
mental points, accordant, in their main substance, with the teaching
of Scripture ; and their defects and errors come out chiefly when
we enter into some of the more minute and detailed explanations
as to the bearings and consequences of the particular doctrine, and
the more distant and less obvious conclusions that may be deduced
from it, — so that, in regard to almost any statement which we
would make, in explaining our sentiments upon these points, for
the purpose of practical instruction, they would fully agree with
us. Arminius held some erroneous views upon the subject of
justification, which his followers afterwards expanded into a sub-
version of the gospel method of salvation, and the establishment
of justification by deeds of law. But he declared — and I have no
doubt honestly — that he could subscribe to every statement in the
chapter upon this subject in Calvin's Institutes. This, of course,
affords no reason why anything that was really defective or erro-
neous in the sentiments of Arminius upon this point — however
unimportant comparatively — should not be exposed and con-
demned ; and still less does it afford any reason why we should
not point out, in connection with this subject, the dangerous ten-
dency of the admission of any error, however insignificant it may
appear ; but it surely affords good ground for the assertion, that

Sec. XV.] SOCINIANISM—ARMINIANISM— CALVINISM. 505

Arminius himself agreed with Calvin in regard to the main sub-
stance and essential principles of his doctrine of justification.

Similar remarks might be made in regard to the views even
of the soundest and most evangelical Arminians, — with respect
to original sin, — the nature of the atonement of Christ, — and the
operation of the Spirit in renovating and sanctifying men's hearts ;
and, indeed, we have had occasion to point out the errors and
defects of their views upon all these topics, and their tendency to
lead to still greater deviations from sound doctrine. But while
all this is the case, and should not be forgotten or overlooked, it
is also true that there are men who deny the peculiar doctrines
of Calvinism, and may therefore be called Arminians, who would
concur in the main substance and the essential principles of the
doctrines which we believe to be taught in Scripture, — upon the
depravity of human nature, — the person and work of Christ, —
and the agency of the Holy Spirit in converting and sanctifying.
And these are doctrines to which greater intrinsic importance
attaches, than to those on which they differ from us ; just because
they bear more directly and immediately upon the great objects
of revelation, theoretical and practical, — namely, the exposition of
the way of salvation, — the development of the truths which God
ordinarily employs as His instruments in the conversion of sinners.
I have pointed out, in the course of our discussions, all the defects
and errors of Arminianism, even in its most evangelical form, as
plainly and explicitly as I could, and with at least enough of
keenness and severity ; but I would like also to point out the ex-
tent to which the soundest portion of those who reject the peculiar
doctrines of Calvinism acrree with us in our views of Christian
theology, and to realize the paramount importance of the doctrines
in regard to which this agreement is exhibited, and the special
prominence to which they are entitled.

Secondly : The second observation which I wish to make is
this, — that Arminianism, in its more Pelagian form, is practically
little better than Socinianism, and would be more consistent if it
renounced a profession of those doctrines concerning the person
and work of Christ, and the agency of the Spirit, by which it
appears to be distinguished from Socinianism. The Pelagian
Arminians profess to believe in the divinity and atonement of
Christ, and in the agency of the Spirit ; but they practically omit
these doctrines, or leave them wholly in the background, in the

506 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXV.

representations they usually give of the general substance and
spirit of revealed truth, and of the way in which it bears upon
the condition and character of men. Their ordinary views and
sentiments upon the subject of the true nature and design of
Christianity, and the representations they commonly give of it for
the instruction and guidance of others, are scarcely affected, to
any material extent, by their professed belief in the divinity and
atonement of Christ, and in the agency of the Spirit. These
doctrines with them are mere words, which have no real value or
significance, and might, to all practical purposes, be just as well
discarded. The cause of this is to be found mainly in the. extent
to which they have denied and corrupted the scriptural doctrine
concerning the guilt and depravity of man, and his consequent
inability to save himself, or to do anything that is really fitted to
effect his own salvation. Their radically erroneous views upon
this subject lead them practically to regard the atoning work of
Christ and the regenerating work of the Spirit as unnecessary,
— there being really no adequate object to be accomplished by
such peculiar and extraordinary provisions. The merits of Christ
and the assistance of the Spirit, are, with such persons, little or
nothing more than mere words, introduced merely as if to round
off a sentence, and to keep up some show of admitting the great
features of the Christian revelation ; while, practically and sub-
stantially, the general strain of their representations of Christianity i
seems plainly to imply, — either, that man does not need anything
that can be called salvation, — or, that whatever he may need in
this matter he is able to effect or provide for himself. This is just
practically Socinianism ; and it is the form in which Socinianism
— or a rejection of all that is peculiar and fundamental in Chris-
tianity— commonly appears among the mass of irreligious and
careless men, living in a community where an open and formal
denial of the divinity and atonement of Christ might subject them
to some inconvenience or disapprobation.

The work of Christ for men, and the work of the Spirit in
men, — rendered necessary by their natural condition of guilt, and
depravity, and helplessness, if they are to be saved, and indis-
pensable to their salvation, — constitute the essential features of
the Christian system, as revealed in the Bible. The Socinians
openly and formally deny these fundamental principles ; and the
Pelagian Arminians, while admitting them in words, deprive them

Sec. XV.] SOCINIANISM—ARMINIANISM— CALVINISM. 507

of all real significance and value, by leaving them out in all their
practical views and impressions, in regard to the way and manner
in which sinners are saved. This was the sort of theology that
prevailed very extensively in the Established Churches of this
country during a large part of last century ; and it is sure always
to prevail wherever true personal religion has been in a great
measure extinguished, — where the ministry is taken up as a mere
trade, — and where men press into the priest's office for a bit of
bread. Among such persons, the question, whether they shall
retain or abandon a profession, in words, of the divinity and
atonement of Christ, and of the personality and agency of the
Holy Spirit, is determined more by their circumstances than by
their convictions, — more by their courage than by their conscience.
And it signifies little, comparatively, how this question is decided ;
for, whether they retain or abandon a profession, in words, of
these great doctrines, they fundamentally corrupt the gospel of
the grace of God, and wholly misrepresent the way of salvation.

This Pelagian form of Arminianism is usually found in con-
nection with everything that is cold, meagre, and lifeless in prac-
tical religion, — in personal character, — or effort for the spiritual
good of others. This, however, has not been always and univer-
sally the case ; and we have had in our day, and among ourselves,
a grossly Pelagian Arminianism, which manifested for a time a
considerable measure of active and ardent zeal. These persons —
popularly known by the name of Morrisonians — professed to have
found out a great specific for the more rapid and extensive con-
version of sinners ; and they employed it with considerable zeal and
activity, and with loud boastings of its extraordinary success. But
their plan is as old at least as the time of Pelagius ; for in itself
it really differs in no material respect from that which he pro-
pounded, and which Augustine overthrew from the word of God.
Pelagius did not deny either the atonement of Christ or the agency
of the Spirit ; but he practically left them out, or explained them
very much away. And so it is with these modern heretics. The
atonement, with them, is reduced to being little or nothing else
practically — however they may sometimes exalt it in words —
than a mere exhibition and proof of God's love to men, fitted
and intended to impress upon us the conviction that He is ready
and wilHng to forgive ; and it is supposed to operate mainly by
impressing this conviction, and thereby persuading us to turn to

508 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

Him ; while the view they give of man's natural power to believe
the gospel — to repent and turn to God, — or, what is virtually
the same thing, in a somewhat more scriptural dress, — a so-called
gracious assistance of the Spirit, imparted equally, or at least
sufficiently, to all men — contradicts the plain doctrine of Scrip-
ture concerning the depravity of human nature, and practically
supersedes the necessity of the special efficacious agency of the
Holy Spirit in the production of faith and conversion. The
system, in short, is manifestly Arminianism in its most Pelagian
form ; and though accompanied in this case with much zeal and
activity, — while Pelagianism has been more usually accompanied
with coldness or apathy, — this does not affect the true character
and tendency of the scheme of doctrine taught ; while the cha-
racter of that doctrine, judged of both by the testimony of Scrip-
ture and the history of the church, warrants us in regarding with
great distrust the conversions which they profess to be making,
and to cherish the suspicion that many are likely to prove like the
stony-ground hearers, who had no root, who endured for a time,
and then withered away.

Before leaving this general consideration, I would like to pointoj
out the lesson which it is fitted to teach as to the important influ-
ence which men's views about the guilt and depravity of human ,
nature exert upon their whole conceptions of the scheme of divinel
truth, and the consequent necessity of rightly understanding that
great doctrine, and being familiar with the scriptural grounds
on which it rests. If doctrines so important and so peculiar in
their character as the atonement of Christ and the special agency
of the Spirit are admitted as true, — and we have not charged the
Pelagian Arminians with conscious hypocrisy in professing
believe them, — it might be expected that they would exert a mosti
extensive and pervading influence upon men's whole views of the'
scheme of divine trutli, and the way of a sinner's salvation ; and
yet we see it abundantly established in the history of the church,
that ignorance of the great doctrine of the universal guilt and
entire depravity of men neutralizes practically all their influence,
and leads those who admit their truth to conceive and represent
the Christian system very much in the same way in which it is _
exhibited by those who believe Christ to be a mere man, and theUi
Holy Ghost to have no existence. There are various gradations
among Arminians, — as I have had occasion to point out, — from

Sec. XV.] SOCINIANISM—ARMINIANISM— CALVINISM. 509

those who, in these important doctrines, substantially agree with
Calvinists, down to those who differ little from the Socinians ; but
of all these various gradations, the distinguishing characteristic
— the testing measure — may be said to be the degree in which the
views of the different parties deviate from the doctrine of Scrip-
ture in regard to the universal guilt and entire depravity of man
by nature, — the real feature in his actual condition which rendered
necessary, if he was to be saved, a special interposition of God's
mercy, — the vicarious sufferings and death of His only-begotten
Son, — and the effusion of His Holy Spirit.

Thirdly: Our third and last observation was, that Arminianism,
in its more evangelical form, — besides being marked by important
errors and defects, — is chargeable with inconsistency, inasmuch as
the fundamental scriptural truths which it embodies can be held
consistently only in connection with the peculiar doctrines of Cal-
vinism. It is chiefly in Wesleyan Methodism that we have this
more evangelical form of Arminianism presented to our contem-
plation ; and it is — as I have had occasion to mention — in E-ichard
Watson's Theological Institutes that we have this view of the
scheme of Christian theology most fully and systematically de-
veloped,— corresponding, in almost every respect, with that taught
by Arminius himself. The errors of the system are, of course,
chiefly the denial of the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism ; and the
defects, additional to the errors, are principally those shortcomings
in the bringing out of the whole doctrine of Scripture, even in
regard to those points on which, in the main, they agree with
Calvinists, to which I referred under the first observation. Their
inconsistency lies in this, that they admit either too much truth,
or too little. They concede, on the one hand, what ought, in con-
sistency, to drag them down to Pelagianism ; and they concede,
on the other, what ought, in consistency, to raise them up to Cal-
vinism. And the worst feature of the case is, that the testimony
of Scripture and the voice of experience concur in declaring that,
in such a position, the tendencies downwards are commonly more
powerful than the tendencies upwards. The Wesleyan Methodists
have hitherto maintained at once a denial of Calvinism and a
denial of Pelagianism. Tliey have hitherto continued stedfast to
views, in the main, sound and scriptural in regard to the depravity
of man, the nature of the atonement, and the work of the Spirit
in regeneration ; and there can be no reasonable doubt that, in

510 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

the proclamation of these great scriptural doctrines, both at home
and abroad, God has been pleased to honour them with a large
measure of success in the conversion of sinners.

But no church has ever continued long in this intermediate
position ; and the probability is, that they too will manifest a ten-
dency towards one or other of the two extremes. It is earnestly
to be hoped that it may be that one which will enable them to
retain all the scriptural truth they at present hold, and to bring it
out more completely and consistently than they now do. They
are accustomed to admit that Calvinism has been always held in
combination with a great deal of important scriptural truth ; and
they are anxious to separate this truth from what they are fond
of calling the peculiarities of Calvinism, — which they sometimes
represent as of no great importance, — and which they profess to
dislike chiefly as neutralizing or obstructing the operation and
effect of the truth which they and Calvinists hold in common.
We do not deny that they hold many important fundamental
truths, or that the truths in which they agree with us are more
important than those in which they differ from us. But we hold
that what they call the peculiarities of Calvinism are very im-
portant truths, — essential to a full and complete exposition of the
scheme of Christian doctrine, — to an exact and accurate develop
ment of the whole plan of salvation ; and, more particularly, — for
this is the only point we can at present advert to, — that they do
not follow out, fully and consistently, the scriptural truths which
they hold, and that, if they did, this would certainly land them
in an admission of all the fundamental principles of Calvinism.

I do not now enter into an illustration of this position. The
materials for illustrating it have been furnished in the examina-
tion of the different doctrines controverted between the Calvinists
and the Arminians. In the course of this examination, we have
repeatedly had occasion to show that the point in dispute really
turned practically upon this question, — Whether God or man was
the cause or the author of man's salvation. Socinians ascribe
man's salvation — that is, everything needful for securing his
eternal happiness — to man himself ; Calvinists, to God ; while
Arminians ascribe it partly to the one and partly to the other, —
the more Pelagian section of them ascribing so much to man, as
practically to leave nothing to God ; and the more evangelical
section of ilxQiaprofessirig to ascribe it, like the Calvinists, wholly

Sec. XV.] SOCINIANISM—AKMINIANISM— CALVINISM. 511

to God, but — by their denial of the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism
— refusing to follow out this great principle fully, and to apply
it, distinctly and consistently, to the various departments of the
scheme of divine truth. They do this commonly under a vague
impression, that when this great principle is followed out and
exhibited, distinctly and definitely, in the particular doctrines of
Calvinism, it involves results inconsistent with the free agency and
responsibility of man, — just as if the creature ever could become
independent of the Creator, — and as if God could not accomplish
all His purposes in and by His creatures, without violating the
principles of their constitution. All men who have ever furnished
satisfactory evidence, in their character and conduct, of being
under the influence of genuine piety, have not only professed, but
believed, that the salvation of sinners is to be ascribed to the
sovereign mercy of God, — that man can do nothing effectual,
in the exercise of his own natural powers, for escaping from his
natural condition of guilt and depravity, — and must be indebted
for this wholly to the free grace of God, the vicarious work of
Christ, and the efficacious agency of the Spirit. Now Calvinism
is really nothing but just giving a distinct and definite expression
and embodiment to these great principles, — applying clear and
precise ideas of them to each branch of the scheme of salvation ;
while every other system of theology embodies doctrines which
either plainly and palpably contradict or exclude them, or at least
throw them into the background, and involve them in indefinite-
ness or obscurity, which can generally be shown to resolve ulti-
mately into a contradiction or denial of them.

Evangelical Arminians profess to believe in the utter help-
lessness and moral impotency of man by nature to anything
spiritually good. This great principle finds its full and accurate
expression only in the doctrine of original sin, as explained and
applied by Calvinists ; while even the soundest Arminians usually
find it necessary to introduce some vague and ill-defined limita-
tion or modification, which they are not able very clearly to ex-
plain, of the universal and entire guilt and depravity of man.
They all admit something which they call the sovereignty of divine
grace in the salvation of sinners ; and by the admission of this,
they intend to deprive men of all ground of boasting, and to give
God the whole glory of their salvation. But if the peculiar prin-
ciples of Calvinism are denied, the sovereignty of God in deter-

512 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXV.

mining the everlasting salvation of sinners is reduced to a mere
name, without a corresponding reality ; and whatever professions
may be made, and whatever may be the intentions and feelings
of the parties making them, the salvation of those who are saved
is not determined by God, but by men themselves, — God merely
foreseeing what they will, in point of fact, do, and regulating His
plans and His conduct accordingly. Evangelical Arminians pro-
fess to ascribe to the agency of the Spirit the production of faith
and regeneration in men individually ; and seem to exclude, as
Calvinists do, the co-operation of man in the exercise of his natural
powers in the origin or commencement of the great spiritual change
which is indispensable to salvation. But whatever they may hold,
or think they hold, upon this point, they cannot consistently —
without renouncing their Arminianism, and admitting the peculiar
principles of Calvinism — make the agency of the Spirit the real,
determining, efficacious cause of the introduction of spiritual life
into the soul ; and must ascribe, in some way or other, — palpably
or obscurely, — some co-operation to man himself, even in the com-
mencement of this work. And if the commencement of the work
be God's, in such a sense that Plis agency is the determining and
certainly efficacious cause of its being effected in every instance,
then this necessarily implies the exercise of His sovereignty in the
matter in a much higher and more definite sense than any in
which Arminians can ever ascribe it to Him. It is not disputed
that, whatever God does in time. He decreed or resolved to do
from eternity ; and therefore men, in consistency, must either
deny that God does this, — that the agency of His Spirit is the
cause of the implantation of spiritual life, — of the commencement
of the process which leads to the production of faith and regene-
ration in any other sense than as a mere partial concurring cause
co-operating with man, — or else they must admit all the peculiar
doctrines of Calvinism in regard to grace and predestination.

It is not, then, to be wondered at, that, as we lately remarked,
some of the most eminent divines in Germany have recently been
led to see and admit the inconsistency of the denial of Calvinism
with the admission of the scriptural doctrine of the Lutheran
symbols in regard to depravity, regeneration, and the work of the
Spirit ; and that some of them have been led, though apparently
chiefly upon the ground of consistent philosophical speculation,
to take the side of Calvinism. And there are few things more

Sec. XV.] SOCINIANISM—ARMINIANISM— CALVINISM

513

earnestly to be desired, with a view to the promotion of sound
doctrine and true religion in our own land, than that the Wes-
leyan Methodists should come to see the inconsistency in which
their peculiar doctrines upon these points involves them ; and be
led to adopt, fully and consistently, the only scheme of theology
which gives full and definite expression and ample scope to all
those great principles which all men of true piety profess to hold,
and in some sense do hold, and which alone fully exhibits and
secures the glory of the grace of God — Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost — in the salvation of sinful men.*

* Knapp's Lectures on Christian
Theology, pp. 116 and 411 ; (Wood's
Notes). Hagenbach's History of Doc-

trines, vol. ii. pp. 448-52. Weg-
scheider's Institiitiones, pp. 466-488.

3 — VOL. II.

2 K

CHAPTER XXVI.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

Sec. 1. — Preshyterianism.

The leading general questions which have been broached in
connection with the subject of church government are these : — Is
the ordinary administration of the affairs of the church vested in
the body of the members of the church, collectively and indiscri-
minately, or in a select number, who, in virtue of their office, are
invested with a certain measure of authority in the management
of ecclesiastical affairs, and of control over the ordinaxy members
of the church % And if the latter be the truth, — as the Refor-
mers in general believed it to be, — then such questions as these
naturally arise : What are the different classes or divisions of the
office-bearers of the church, and what are their different func-
tions respectively ? Are there any of them priests, possessed of
a proper priestly character, and entitled to execute priestly func-
tions? Is there any divinely-sanctioned class of functionaries in
the church superior to the ordinary pastors of congregations ?
And if not, is there any other class of office-bearers, in some re-
spect inferior to them, but entitled to take part along with them
in the government of the church ? Most of these questions were
fully investigated and discussed at the period of the Reformation,
and were then settled on grounds which have ever since com-
mended themselves to the great body of the Reformed churches.
With a partial exception, — to be afterwards noticed, — in the case
of Luther, the Reformers generally held that the ordinary right
of administering the affairs of the church was vested, not in the
body of the members, but in select office-bearers.

Most of them held that the church, collectively, — which they
usually defined to be coetus Jidelium, — was vested by Christ with
such entire self-sufficiency, such full intrinsic capacity with re-
spect to everything external, for the attainment of its own ends and

Sec. I.] PRESBYTERIANISM. 515

the promotion of its own welfare by means of His ordinances, as
to be entitled, in extraordinary emergencies, to do anything^ how-
ever ordinarily irregular, that might be necessary to secure these
results. This is the great general principle that is indicated in
our Confession of Faith, when it lays down the position, that, " to
the catholic visible church, consisting of all those throughout the
world who profess the true religion, together with their children,
Christ has given the ministry, the oracles, and the ordinances of
God." The Reformers made use of this important principle to
defend, against the Eomanists, the validity of their own vocation
to the ordinary work of the ministry, and the special work of refor-
mation. But they did not regard it as at all inconsistent with the
following truths, which they also generally maintained, as founded
upon the word of God, — namely, that the church is bound, as well
as entitled, to have office-bearers, and just the kinds and classes
of office-bearers wiiich are sanctioned by the sacred Scripture ;
that Scripture contains plain enough indications as to the way in
which these office-bearers should be appointed and established, —
indications which should be implicitly followed as far as possible,
and in all ordinary circumstances ; and that these office-bearers,
so appointed and established, become, in virtue of their office,
vested with authority to administer the ordinary government of
the church, subject to no other jurisdiction or authoritative con-
trol than that of Christ Himself speaking in His word.

The Church of Rome had extensively corrupted the teaching of
Scripture in regard to the government of the church as a society,
no less than in regard to the great principles that determine the
salvation of men individually. The leading features of the Romish
system of government, which the Reformers assailed upon Scrip-
ture grounds, may be comprehended under the heads of the Priest-
hood, the Papacy, and the Prelacy. By the priesthood, we mean
the ascription of a proper priestly character, and the exercise of
proper priestly functions, to some of the ecclesiastical office-bearers;
or, in substance, what is sometimes discussed in the present day
under the name of the hierarchical principle. The leading con-
siderations that demonstrate the anti-scriptural and dangerous
character of this principle, we have already had occasion to
advert to, in discussing the sacramental principle. The Papacy
and the Prelacy — the supremacy of the Pope and the authority
of diocesan bishops — we considered in our former discussions.

516 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

At present we can give only a few historical notices of the way
in which they were discussed at the period of the Reformation,
and of the use that has since been made of the discussion which
they then received.

The Romanists contend that the government of the church, as
settled by Christ, is monarchical, — one supreme ruler being set over
the whole church, and being, jure divino, invested with the highest
authority in the regulation of all its affairs. There is indeed a
difference of opinion among Romanists themselves — and the point
has never been settled by any authority to which all Romanists
yield submission — upon this important question, Whether this
supreme ruler of the church is, de jure, an absolute or a limited
monarch, — some of them contending that the Pope has unlimited
power of legislation and jurisdiction, and that all other ecclesias-
tical functionaries are merely his delegates, deriving their autho-
rity from him, and wholly subject to his control in the execution
of all their functions ; while others maintain that even the Pope
is subject to the jurisdiction of a general council, and bound to
regulate his decisions by the canons of the church, — and allege,
moreover, that bishops derive their authority from Christ, and not
from the Pope, though they are subject, under certain limitations,
to his control in the ordinary execution of their functions. Still
all Romanists acknowledge that the Pope is the supreme ruler and
universal monarch of the church, while they vest the ordinary ad-
ministration of the affairs of particular churches in bishops, as a dis-
tinct order from presbyters or ordinary pastors, — ascribing to them
— when they are assembled in a general council, and thus represent,
as they say, the universal church — the privilege of infallibility.

Luther first discovered that the Pope has no right to govern
the church jure divino ; and then, as he proceeded with his inves-
tigations, he found out that the Pope has no good right to the
crown and the sceptre as monarch of the church even jicre liumano.
As he continued to study the word of God, he was soon led to see
that there is no warrant in Scripture for " those falsely denomi-
nated bishops," — to use his own language in the title of one of
his treatises, — and became convinced that ordinary presbyters or
pastors are fully competent to the execution of all the functions
which are necessary in discharging all the ordinary duties, and
in carrying on the ordinary operations, of a church of Chris^
Neither Luther, however, nor his more immediate follower^

Sec. L]

PEESBYTERIANISM.

517

directed mucli attention to the formation of a scriptural system of
church government. Indeed, Luther* seemed at one time to
have perverted and misapphed the scriptural principle, that all
believers are in some sense priests, and to have deduced from this
principle the conclusion, that believers indiscriminately had a right
to administer all God's ordinances, and to take part in regulating
all the affairs of His church, — the appointment and setting apart
of individuals to labour in what are usually reckoned the functions
of the ministry being regarded by him, at that period, rather as
a matter of convenience, suggested by the obvious advantages of
the plan, than as a matter of necessary scriptural arrangement.
He came afterwards, however, to see more clearly the scriptural
authority of a standing ministry, and of fixed office-bearers as
distinguished from the ordinary members of the church ; but he
and his followers continued, as I have explained, to have rather
loose views of the necessity of positive scriptural warrant for every-
thing that might be established as a part of the ordinary govern-
ment and worship of the church, and ascribed to the church itself
a certain discretionary power of regulating these matters as might
seem best and most expedient at the time. Luther himself never
held or claimed any higher office than that of a presbyter; and yet
he considered himself entitled to execute, and did execute, all the
functions necessary for conducting the ordinary operations of a
church of Christ, and preserving a succession in the ministry.
Nay, on one or two occasions, he assumed and exercised the autho-
rity of ordaining a bishop or prelate,f — that is, of investing a
man with a certain measure of control over other pastors ; and
some Prelatic controversialists, in their eagerness to get some
countenance from the Reformers, have been rash and incon-
siderate enough to appeal to this fact as a proof that Luther held
their principles, while indeed it proves the very reverse. It is
very certain that no mere presbyter, who held Prelatic principles^
would have assumed to himself the power of making a bishop, as
the assumption and exercise of such a power by a presbyter plainly

* Luther, De instituendis ministris
Ecdesim, published in 1523 ; Opera,
torn. ii. Ed. 1557. Bellarmin. De
Sacramentis, lib. i. c. xxv. torn. iii. p.
44. Ed. 1615.

t Brown, on Puseyite Episcopacy

(p. 249), refers for proof of Luther's
ordination of two bishops to Melchior
Adams' Vitie German. Theolog. p. 150,
and Seckendorf , De Lutheranismo, lib.
iii. p. 392.

518 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

involves an explicit denial of the scriptural authority of the epis-
copate as a distinct and higher order ; and the denial or assertion
of this embodies, as I have repeatedly had occasion to explain, the
true status qucestionis in the controversy between Presbyterians
and Prelatists. Luther's conduct upon the occasion referred to
certainly proves that he did not think it to be positively sinful, or
even unlawful, for one pastor to be invested by common consent,
when particular circumstances seemed to render it expedient, with
a certain measure of control over other pastors. It proves this,
but nothing more ; while his conduct upon that occasion, the
whole tenor of his life and history, and the express statements
contained in his writings, all concur in proving that he held, in
common with all the other Reformers, that the episcopate, as a
permanent, necessary order of functionaries in the church, has no
warrant or authority in Scripture.

It is to Calvin, however, that we are indebted for the fullest
and most accurate exposition of the scriptural scheme of govern-
ment, as well as of the scriptural system of doctrine. His leading
principles were these : That a separate ministry is a standing
ordinance appointed by God, provision being made in His word
for preserving and perpetuating it in the church in a regular
manner ; and that ministers who have been duly and regularly
set apart to the work are alone warranted, in all ordinary circum-
stances, to administer God's ordinances of public preaching and
the sacraments ; that presbyters, or ordinary pastors of congrega-
tions, are fully authorized to discharge all the ordinary duties
necessary in the administration of the affairs of the church, —
including, of course, the ordination of other pastors ; that the
episcopate, as a permanent necessary institution, is wholly un-
sanctioned by Scripture, and is therefore, upon principles for-
merly explained, by plain implication forbidden; and, finally, that
a distinction between the office-bearers and the ordinary members
of the church is established by Scripture, and ought to be per-
manently observed, while, at the same time, the power of ruling
in the church, or presiding in the administration of its affairs, as
connected with the holding of office, is not limited to pastors as
the authorized administrators of solemn ordinances, but ought to
be exercised by them in common with the office-bearers duly
chosen and set apart for that purpose. It was chiefly in denying
the lawfulness of the assumed jurisdiction of the Pope and of

Sec. I.]

PRESBYTEKIANISM.

519

bishops, and in asserting the parity of all ministers of the word or
pastors of flocks, and the propriety of others, not pastors, taking
part along with them in the administration of the ordinary affairs
of the church, that Calvin set himself in opposition to the scheme
of ecclesiastical government that existed in the Church of Rome.
And his doctrines upon these subjects were adopted, and in sub-
stance acted upon, by almost all the Reformers, and in almost all
the churches of the Reformation, with the limitation which has
been already explained in the case of the Lutheran churches, and
with a somewhat similar, though rather greater, limitation in the
case of the Church of England.* I cannot at present enter upon
an exposition of the scriptural grounds by which Calvin's scheme
of church government can be established, but must content myself
with adverting to a few historical circumstances connected with
the discussions to which it has given rise.

As the whole Popish scheme of church government, including
tthe offices and functions of popes and prelates, was assailed by
the Reformers, this subject came under discussion in the Council
)f Trent, which was held for the professed purpose of giving an
authoritative and infallible decision upon all the various questions
rraised by the Reformers ; and in the proceedings of the council,
land indeed in Popish works generally, it is taken up, so far at
peast as Prelacy is concerned, under the head of the " Sacrament of
order." f On this, as on many other subjects, there were consider-
able differences of opinion among the members of the council,
and great difficulty was experienced in drawing up the decrees.
A very interesting account of these difficulties, of the discussions
and intrigues to which they gave rise, and of the views of the
different parties concerned in them, is to be found in the seventh
book of Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent. The
leading points decided by the council in their decrees and canons
upon the sacrament of order, so far as we are at present con-
cerned with them, are these : that there is a proper visible priest-
hood under the New Testament, or a distinct body of men who
are truly and properly priests, and whose special characteristic is,
that they have the right to consecrate and offer the true body
and blood of the Lord, and of retaining and remitting sins ; that

* Vide Bunsen's ridiculously erro-
neous account of the general cha-
racter of the views of Luther and

Calvin on this subject, in his Church
of the Future.
f Sess. xxiii.

520 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

m
there are other orders of clergy in the church besides the priest-
hood, both major and minor, through the latter of which men rise
to the priesthood ; that there is a hierarchy appointed by divine
ordination, consisting of bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; and
that bishops are superior to presbyters, and have the exclusive
povi^er of confirming and ordaining. This is the substance of the
authorized doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject, as
settled by the Council of Trent ; and it will be observed that, in
addition to what is peculiar to Romanists, it contains an explicit
assertion of the leading distinguishing principles of Prelatists, —
indeed, a much fuller and more explicit assertion of Prelatic
principles than has ever been given by the Church of England.
It is true that there was much discussion in the Council of Trent
upon the question, whether the superiority of bishops over pres-
byters, at least as to the potestas jurisdictionis, was jure divino or
not ; and that, through the strenuous exertions of the Pope and
his creatures, the council abstained from declaring formally and
expressly that it was. As some Episcopalian controversialists
endeavour to draw from this circumstance a presumption in
favour of their views, and as the fact itself is curious, it may be
proper to give some explanation of it.

Presbyterians have been accustomed to assert that the views
and practice of Episcopalians upon the subject of the hierarchy
are the same as those of the Church of Rome, and to regard this,
when combined with the fact that they were rejected hy the great
body of the Reformers, as a strong presumption against their
truth. That the views of Prelatists are identical with those of
the Church of Rome, is too plain to admit of any doubt; for
what is prelacy, as a doctrine, but just the maintaining that
the hierarchy consists of three distinct orders, — bishops, presby-
ters, and deacons, — and that bishops are superior to presbyters,
being possessed of the exclusive power of confirming and ordain-
ing % And all this is explicitly asserted, totidem verbis, by the
Council of Trent as the doctrine of the Church of Rome.
Prelatists, indeed, do not regard confirmation and ordination as
sacraments, as the Church of Rome does ; but they agree with
Romanists in holding that the administration of both these cere-
monies forms a necessary part of the ordinary business of the
church, and one which cannot be transacted by presbyters, but
only by bishops. But notwithstanding this clear and full accord-

Sec. I.] PRESBYTERIANISM. 521

ance, some Prelatists have alleged that the Church of Rome is
no friend to Prelacy, and have brought forM^ard the fact already-
referred to in proof of this. Now it is quite plain that no such
fact as this can in the least invalidate or neutralize the manifest
accordance between the decisions adopted and promulgated by
the Council of Trent, and the principle held by Prelatists, —
especially as it is certain that all Popish writers, ever since the
Council of Trent, have been zealous supporters of the leading
views for which Prelatists, as such, contend.

There were two causes, of very different kinds, that produced
division and disputation in the preliminary discussions in the
Council of Trent on the subject of the jus divinum of the
superiority of bishops over presbyters. As there were a few
men in the council who seem to have honestly held scriptural
views upon the subject of justification and predestination, so
there appear to have been some who honestly doubted whether
the superiority of bishops over presbyters, as a distinct higher
order of functionaries, could be fully established from Scripture
or the traditions of the early church. It was openly asserted by
one of the most eminent theologians of the council, that not
-^rius alone, as Prelatists commonly allege, but also that Jerome,
Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
QEcumenius, and Theophylact, — all of them eminent fathers, —
had maintained, more or less explicitly, the identity of bishops
and presbyters. Many plain traces and testimonies of this ori-
ginal identity were to be found, as Presbyterians have often
proved, down till the period of the Reformation. It may be
sufficient, as a specimen of this, to refer to the important facts,
that the original identity of bishop and presbyter is expressly
asserted both in the Decree of Gratian, and in the Sentences of
P. Lombard, who both flourished in the twelfth century, — the
one the great oracle of the Church of Rome in canon law, and
the other in theology. It is a curious indication of the same
general state of sentiment, combined with the results of the re-
vived study of the Scriptures, that in the books put forth by
public authority in England, in the reign of Henry viii., and
under the superintendence of Archbishop Cranmer, — after the
authority of the Church of Rome had been thrown off, but before
the Protestant system was very well understood, — it should be
declared that the New Testament makes explicit mention only of

522 CHUECH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVT.

two orders of ecclesiastical office-bearers, — namely, presbyters and
deacons.* Prelacy had universally prevailed for many centuries
in the Church of Rome ; but a latent and probably unconscious
regard to scriptural authority and early tradition had still so much
influence, that some eminent writers, of almost all periods down
till the Reformation, were disposed to look upon the episcopate
and the presbyterate not as two distinct orders, but merely as two
different degrees (gradus) in one and the same order, and to re-
gard the great difference between them, which was exhibited in
the actual government of the church, as based only upon com- :
paratively modern practice and ecclesiastical law, — views, in sub-
stance, the same as those held by the generality of the English
Reformers.

The classification of the different orders of the clergy still
common, or rather universal, among Romish writers, may be
fairly regarded as affording a sort of involuntary and uninten-
tional testimony to the same general idea. When it is found that
Romish writers make no fewer than seven different orders of
clergy, — all of them clerici, as distinguished from laid; some
authorities, like Bellarmine, making the ordination of each dis-
tinct order a sacrament, — it might, perhaps, not unnaturally be
supposed that these seven orders are popes, cardinals, patriarchs,
archbishops, bishops, presbyters, and deacons. This, however,
would be an entire mistake. The priesthood is the highest of the
seven orders of clergy, and comprehends presbyters and bishops,
and all the various ranks above them. The other six orders of
the clergy are all inferior to the priesthood, and go down through
the various gradations of deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists,
and readers, to doorkeepers (ostiarii) inclusive. Now this univer-
sal practice of the Romish writers in making the priesthood or
presbyterate the highest of the seven orders of clergy, may be
fairly regarded as something like an unintentional admission of
there being some foundation in Scripture and primitive antiquity
for the great doctrine of the Reformers upon this subject, —
namely, that presbyters, or pastors, are really competent to execute
all, even the highest, functions necessary in the ordinary business
of the church. And there is no reason whatever why we may
not legitimately attach some weight, in this as in other matters,

* Boyse'a Account of Ancient Episcopacy, c. 1.

Sec. I.] PEESBYTERTANISM. 523

even to the faint indications of primitive doctrine and practice
preserved in the Church of Rome, — indications which are just
entitled to the more weight, because they point to a state of
things opposed to what is now, and has long been, the authorized
doctrine and practice of the church which has preserved them.

The few more honest men, however, who were somewhat in-
fluenced by these considerations, would not have been able to
have thrown any serious difficulty in the way of the Council of
Trent deciding more fully and explicitly in favour of the jus
divinum of Prelacy, more than the few men who held sounder
views upon other points were able to prevent the council from
condemning them, had not another influence come into play.
Those members of the council, chiefly Spanish bishops, joined
afterwards by a few French ones, who pressed for an explicit
decision in favour of the jus divinum of Prelacy, were men who
were anxious to see a thorough reformation of abuses, — disposed
to curb the power of the Pope, — and likely to employ whatever
authority might be assigned to bishops in prosecuting objects, and
in effecting results, to which the Pope was decidedly opposed.
This, of course, was quite a sufficient reason why he should resist
a formal declaration of the^ws divinum of the episcopate, in order,
if possible, to keep the bishops more dependent upon his own
control in the ordinary execution of their functions. And this
result, accordingly, was effected by a vigorous application of the
ordinary system of fraud, intrigue, and intimidation, by which,
in almost every instance, the Court of Rome contrived to manage
the council at its discretion, and at least to prevent the adoption
of any deliverance to which it was opposed.

It ought to be observed, also, what was the exact position
taken by the generality of those in the council who opposed a
formal declaration of the jus divinum of Prelacy. Tiiey did not
deny the jus divinum of a superior potestas ordinis, — that the
episcopate in general, as a distinct superior office or class of
functionaries, rested upon a jus divinum, — but merely that indi-
vidual bishops held their office, and possessed an inherent right
to execute all its functions, Jt^rg divino. The office of a bishop or
prelate, they admitted, was established by Christ, and could not
be abrogated or abolished even by the Pope ; but they contended
that each individual holding the office derived his personal autho-
rity from the Pope, and was wholly subject to his control in the

524 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

execution of his functions, — that he held this jure pontificis, and
not jure divino. Now all this might be held without affecting
the fundamental principle of Prelacy, — without leading to a
denial of the jus divinum of Prelacy in the sense in which it
forms a subject of controversy between Presbyterians and high
church Prelatists. The Pope did not urge the council to decide
explicitly in favour of his view upon the point, and contented
himself with preventing an explicit denial of it.

This is the whole history of the matter, and it is plainly quite
inadequate to serve the purpose for which it is sometimes ad-
duced by Episcopalian controversialists. It remains unquestion-
ably true, that the Church of Rome holds, as a fundamental part
of her system of church government, — which she maintained in
opposition to the scriptural arguments of the Reformers, — all
the leading principles of Prelacy, and that she has asserted them
much more fully and explicitly than the Church of England has
ever done. The Council of Trent has established it as an article
of faith, that bishops are superior to presbyters, and possess the
exclusive power of confirming and ordaining ; while the utmost
length which the Church of England has ventured to go on the
subject, is exhibited in the following declaration, contained in
the Preface to the Ordinal : " It is evident unto all men, dili-
gently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the
apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's
Church, — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." Now this declaration
is very vague and ambiguous. It contains no explicit assertion
of the superiority of bishops over presbyters, as a distinct higher
order. It assigns to bishops no peculiar functions necessary in
the ordinary administration of the affairs of the church, which
presbyters are incompetent to perform. It does not assert that
these orders existed in the apostles' time, but only that they
existed from the apostles' time ; and the general reference to the
holy Scripture, as concurring with ancient authors in affording
materials for establishing the general conclusion of the existence
of these orders as a matter of fact, is very far from amounting to
an assertion of a proper jus divinum in favour of each of the
orders, as distinct from the others. This is the only thing like a
doctrinal deliverance the Church of England has ever given on
the subject of Prelacy, — the great distinctive feature of its form
of government, — and it comes far short, in point of clearness and

Sec. II.] TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 525

fulness, of that given by the Council of Trent. The cause of
this great vagueness and ambiguity in the only thing like a doc-
trinal deliverance the Church of England has ever given on the
subject of Prelacy, is the same in substance as that which pre-
vented the Council of Trent from explicitly deciding in favour of
the jus divinum of the superiority of bishops over presbyters, in
the sense in which we have explained it. The leading men con-
nected with the reformation of the Church of England did not
believe or maintain the jus divinum of Prelacy. The original
defenders of the Prelacy of the Church of England took, on this
subject, much the same ground as they did in vindicating the
rites and ceremonies which they retained, — namely, that there
was nothing unlawful or sinful about it, and that when it was
established by the concurrence of the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities, it was right to submit to it. There is then, at least,
as good ground for alleging of the Church of England as of the
Church of Rome, that it is no good friend to Prelacy ; and it is
hopeless for Prelatists to escape, by this or by any other process,
from the odium of concurring in the doctrine and practice of the
great apostasy upon this subject.

It is not enough, however, as we have had occasion to explain,
to warrant us in designating any doctrine or practice as Popish,
in any sense which affords a legitimate presumption against its
truth, unless we can show that, besides being taught and main-
tained by the Church of Rome, it was always condemned and
rejected by the great body of those whom, at the era of the
Reformation, God raised up and qualified for restoring His truth ;
and to the testimony of the Reformers we must now proceed to
advert.

Sec. 2. — Testimony of the Reformers as to Pr^eshyterianism.

Episcopalians are in the habit of boasting that, for the space
of fifteen hundred years, from the time of the apostles till the
Reformation, Prelacy prevailed over the whole Christian church;
and they adduce this as a very strong presumption in its favour ;
nay, they sometimes represent it as a proof that it was established
by the apostles themselves. There are ample materials, as I have
had occasion to show, for cutting off at least the first two of these
centuries ; and these are by far the most important, — -indeed, the

526 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

only ones that are possessed of any real importance. It is an
important fact, that ought never to be forgotten, that the only
two productions we have of men who personally associated with
the apostles, the genuineness and integrity of which is free from
reasonable suspicion, are, the epistle of Clement to the Corin-
thians, and the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians ; and that
these epistles contain satisfactory evidence that, in the age imme-
diately succeeding that of the apostles, the churches of Corinth
and Philippi, at least, — and we have no reason to suppose that
there was anything peculiar in their case, — were governed upon
Presbyterian, and not upon Prelatic, principles. But even if
Prelatists could justly boast of the consenting practice of the
whole church after the age of inspiration and infallibility, we
would not hesitate to oppose to it, upon the field of human
authority, — for in neither case does it rise higher, — the unanimous
testimony of the Reformers.

We ascribe authority, properly so called, in religious matters,
only to God, who is Lord of the conscience. We submit im-
plicitly to men only when they can prove that they speak in His
name, and under His guidance. We receive nothing as cer-
tainly coming from Him, and therefore imperatively binding
upon us, except what is found recorded in His written word.
And it is of the last importance to distinguish accurately at all
times between what is properly authoritative and what is not, —
between what at once imposes an obligation upon our understand-
ing, and what merely affords a presumption or probability. But
there is a reasonable deference due to the opinion of men, iu
certain circumstances, which may be regarded as affording some
presumption, or indicating some probability, in favour of the
scriptural truth of the views which they profess. And estimated
by the dictates of right reason upon this point, we have no hesita-
tion in regarding as superior in weight- and value to that of any
other body of men who could be specified, the testimony of those
whom God, at the era of the Reformation, honoured as His special
instruments, in bringing out and pressing upon the attention of
the world the scriptural method of salvation revealed in His word.
Everything about the men, — their general character and history,
— the mode in which they ground their opinions, — the source from
which they derived them, — and the gifts and graces whicli God
bestowed upon them, — the success He vouchsafed to them in

Sec. II.]

TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS.

527

bringing out and diffusing the fundamental doctrines of Christian
theology, — all combine in giving probability to the conclusion,
that the doctrines which they taught concerning the constitution
and government of the church of Christ are in accordance vf'ith.
the sacred Scriptures. It is well known, that most of those men
whom God raised up during the middle ages, as witnesses for
Himself and His truth, amid the deep darkness of Popery, de-
rived from the study of the Scriptures the leading principles of
Presbyterianism on the subject of church government. And if,
in addition to this, we find that the great body of the Reformers
deduced Presbyterian principles from the same source, — and if
this, again, be confirmed by the fact that the Council of Trent
condemned them, and that they now stand anathematized in the
Church of Rome, — we have the largest accumulation of probabi-
lities in their favour that can be derived from any mere human
testimony. Now all these positions can be conclusively estab-
lished ; and they form a much stronger presumption in favour
of Pi-esbyterian, than can be adduced in favour of Prelatic,
principles.

With respect to the first of them, it may be sufficient at pre-
sent to mention, that when Archbishop Bancroft published, in
1588, the sermon which, from its high Prelatic strain, gave so
much offence to the Reformed churches, an answer to it was
written by Dr. John Reynolds, who was regarded at that time as
the most learned man in the Church of England,* in which,
among other things, he asserted and proved, " that all they who
have for five hundred years last past, endeavoured the reforma-
tion of the church, have taught that all pastors, whether they be
called bishops or priests, are invested with equal authority and
power." It is perfectly certain, from the quotations formerly
given, that the Council of Trent explicitly condemned the Pres-
byterian principles which they ascribed to the Reformers, and
explicitly asserted, in opposition to them, the fundamental prin-
ciples of Prelacy. And we have now to add, with reference to

* Bishop Hall, speaking of Rey-
nolds, says, " He alone was a well-
furnisht librarie, full of all faculties,
of all studies, of all learning ; the
memory, the reading of that man,
were neere to a mii-acle" (Works, folio,

p. 262). His letter to Sir Francis
Knolls, in answer to Archbishop Ban-
croft, is to be found in Fetrie's Church
History^ and in Boyse's Account of
Ancient E/nscopacy. Chaufepie has
a Life of him.

528 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

the remaining one of these three positions, that the Council of
Trent were right in ascribing Presbyterian principles to the Re-
formers, and in regarding them as doctrines of the Reformation.

It cannot, indeed, *be proved that all the Reformers held that
it was sinful or unlawful to introduce into, or to continue in,
the church, all pre-eminence or superiority of one pastor over
another. But the toleration which some of them manifested upon
this point, did not arise from their holding anything like the
proper principle of Prelacy ; but solely from their not having,
as I have shown was the case with Luther and his immediate fol-
lowers, any clear perception of the unlawfulness of introducing,
as a permanent arrangement, into the government of the church,
anything which has not the positive sanction of Scripture. It
can be proved, however, that the great body of the Reformers,
including Luther and his followers, denied the fundamental prin-
ciple of Prelacy, and maintained that there is nothing in Scrip-
ture which requires or sanctions the permanent existence in the
church of a distinct order of functionaries higher than ordinary
pastors, — nothing which proves that there is any ordinary func-
tion of the church, anything ordinarily necessary to be done in
the administration of its affairs, to the execution of which pres-
byters are not fully competent. The Reformers were unable to
find any evidence in Scripture of the apostles having indicated
any intention that they should have successors in the apostolic
office, though this is the position which many Episcopalians assign
to their prelates, and though this idea is perhaps their most
plausible mode of accounting for the non-appearance of prelates
in the New Testament. The Reformers could see no trace in
Scripture of the apostles having made, or enjoined, or sanctioned
the appointment of any regular permanent order of functionaries
for the service of the church, except presbyters and deacons.
And they thought it perfectly certain, and beyond the reach of
all reasonable doubt, that the New Testament uniformly ascribed
the same names, and the same functions or duties, to those whom
it calls indiscriminately bishops and presbyters. They professed
themselves utterly unable to account for this remarkable fact, so
different from anything to be found in the writings of more
modern times, except upon the assumption that the inspired
writers used bishop and presbyter as two different names for one
and the same class of functionaries ; and that by this practice

Sec. II.] TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 529

they intended to indicate to us in what way, and by what orders
of persons, the o;overnment of the church was to be permanently
administered. That these were the views which were deduced
from Scripture, with respect to the government of the church,
by the great body of the Reformers, Lutheran and Calvinistic,
can be easily and conclusively established from their writings.
And, indeed, I think there is no impropriety in saying that this
is a question on which there is not room for an honest difference
of opinion among men who have really examined it.

Yet it is well known that it is the general practice of Episco-
palian controversialists, to assert that the Reformers in general,
and even Calvin and Beza, were favourable, or at least were not
unfavourable, to Prelacy. The process by which they usually
attempt to establish this position, is in substance this : they over-
look or conceal all those parts of the writings of the Reformers
in which they discuss the subject of church government formally
and of set purpose ; and then they lay hold of incidental expres-
sions, which, taken by themselves, may be somewhat ambiguous,
and present them in a garbled and mutilated form, and without
the light which the context and scope of the passage cast upon
the meaning. Abundant illustrations of these statements might
be easily produced from the writings of Episcopalian controver-
sialists. The only excuse — and it is a very imperfect one — for
the unwarrantable and discreditable course which many of them
have pursued in this matter, is, that they have just copied their
extracts from their predecessors, without taking the trouble of
examining them in the writings of the authors from whom they
were quoted. And I could produce, were it worth while, some
curious instances, in which this long continued process of succes-
sive copying at second hand has worn away the traces of Pres-
byterianism which attached to some even of those passages when
they were first brought forward for Prelatic purposes. The first
collection of these garbled extracts to prove that the Continental
Reformers were not unfavourable to Prelacy, was made by Arch-
bishop Bancroft, who, as we have seen, was the first to break the
peace among the Reformed churches. This he did chiefly in a
very insolent and dishonest book, published in 1593, and entitled
Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline, — that is, of course, of
the Presbyterian views of government and worship advocated by
the Puritans of that period. The book is intended and fitted

3— VOL. II. 2 L

530 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

merely to excite prejudice — without fairly discussing the subject
upon its merits. The leading object is, by misrepresentation and
garbled extracts, to create an impression that the leading de-
fenders of Presbytery were dishonest, ignorant, and inconsistent,
— that they had no fixed principles, and were at utter variance
among themselves, as to the grounds on which their cause should
be defended. He does not, indeed, deny that Calvin had advo-
cated and established Presbyterianism ; and he pretends to give a
minute account of the invention of Presbyterian church govern-
ment by Calvin, and openly asserts that Presbyterianism was the
mere result of external circumstances, or rather that it was fabri-
cated by Calvin for selfish and ambitious purposes. But then he
asserts that the chief impugners of bishops had begun to relent ;
and in proof of this position he adduces most of those passages
from Calvin, Beza, and other Reformers, which the generality of
Episcopalian controversialists have ever since, down even to the
present day, been accustomed to quote, for the purpose of proving
that they were favourable to Prelacy.

Another expedient that has been extensively employed by
Episcopalian controversialists to neutralize the testimony of the
Reformers in favour of Presbyterian, and in opposition to Pre-
latic, principles, is to represent them as setting up Presbyterian
government from necessity, and as apologizing for their conduct
in doing so by pleading the difficulties of their situation, — the
great difficulty, if not impossibility, of doing anything else in the
circumstances in which they were placed. In connection with
this topic, some of them have made a very becoming display of
their great charity, by pleading this excuse of necessity in behalf
of the Continental Reformers ; taking good care, at the same
time, to aggravate by the contrast, tlie conduct of those unreason-
able Nonconformists in our own country, who, without the plea
of necessity, have refused to embrace and submit to the apostolic
form of government, as it is called, which is established among
tliem.

This notion is very often brought forward in Episcopalian
works. This mode of treating the subject may be admitted to
indicate a somewhat kindlier spirit and temper than the course
adopted by tliose sterner Episcopalians, who really unchurch all
the churches of the Reformation. But the only thing that can
be said of it with truth is, that it is a pure fabrication, without

^^•'

Sec. II.] TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 531

any evidence whatever to rest upon. The Reformers never pleaded
necessity in their own behalf, and they never condescended to
apologize, on that or on any other ground, for their approving
and establishing Presbyterian church government. They always
believed, and they openly and unhesitatingly maintained, that in
doing so they were following the guidance of the sacred Scrip-
tures,— that, in the arrangements they adopted and established
with regard to the government of the church, they were only
removing the corruptions which had been introduced into it, and
were regulating it according to the mind and will of God revealed
in His word. This is the uniform and consistent testimony which
the Reformers gave on the subject in their writings ; and there is
not the slightest ground, in anything they ever said or did, for
doubting its sincerity. Nay, several of the Reformed churches
have introduced into their Confessions of Faith an explicit asser-
tion of the fundamental principles of Presbyterianism, as a por-
IJ tion of the unchangeable truth of God revealed in His word,
I and imposed by His authority upon the faith and practice of the
church. This attempt, then, to neutralize the testimony of the
Reformers upon the subject of church government — though in
some respects well meant — is altogether unsuccessful.

The only thing else of any moment which Episcopalians have
brought forward in order to break the force of the testimony of
the Reformers against Prelacy, and to soften the singularity of
the position of the Church of England among the churches of
the Reformation, is the existence of bishops in the churches of
Denmark and Sweden, and of superintendents in some other
Lutheran churches. The Episcopacy of Denmark and Sweden
is but a slight deviation from the general uniformity of the
Reformed churches as a whole ; and, besides, the Protestant
bishops set up in these countries at the Reformation were not
|; the regular successors of men who had been consecrated to the
li episcopal office, but derived their ordination and authority from
|( Luther, and the presbyters who were associated with him, — so
ll that they were incapable of maintaining proper Prelatic prin-
f. ciples, and thus resembled very much the present bishops of the
M Methodist Church in the United States, who derive their autho-
§ rity from John Wesley, and two other presbyters through Dr.
si Coke, whom Wesley and his associates appointed a bishop. As
! to the superintendents in other Lutheran churches, this institu-

532 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI. j

tion affords no testimony in favour of proper Prelacy. These
superintendents are not regarded as holding a distinct higher
office, superior to that of presbyters, and investing them simply
as holding that office with jurisdiction over ordinary pastors, |
but merely as presbyters raised by the common consent of their ^
brethren to a certain very limited control for the sake of order.
This institution is no proof that the Lutheran churches hold the
doctrine of Prelacy, but merely that they hold the lawfulness of
a certain limited pre-eminence or superiority being conferred by
presbyters upon one of themselves. Indeed, the doctrine of
Presbytery, as opposed to Prelacy, was not only held, as we have
seen, by Lnther and his associates, but was distinctly declared in
the articles of Smalcald, which is one of the symbolical books of
the Lutheran Church. There it is set forth, that all the functions
of church government belong equally of right to all who preside
over the churches, whether called pastors, presbyters, or bishops ;
and this general principle is expressly applied to ordination, as
proving that ordination by ordinary pastors is valid.*

The whole doctrine of the Lutheran Church upon this subject
is thus laid down by Buddgeus, — and there cannot be a doubt that
his statement fairly embodies what has always been held by the
generality of Lutheran divines : " Si jus divinum spectes, ministri
ecclesise omnes inter se, intuitu dignitatis et officii, sunt sequales.
Discrimen enim, quod deinceps inter episcopos et presbyteros in-
tercessit, tempore apostolorum ignotum fuit. Interim nihil obstat,
quo minus ecclesia muneris et dignitatis quandam insequalitatem
introducat, modo non ex docentibus imperantes fiant, et, quod
humana auctoritate factum est, jure divino constitutum credatur."f

It has always been one of the leading general arguments
which Romanists have adduced against the Reformers and their
successors in the Protestant churches, that, though mere presby-
ters, they assumed functions which belonged only to bishops, —
and especially that, as mere presbyters, they were incapable of
preserving a succession of pastors in the church, since bishops
alone had the power of ordaining to the ministerial office. And
this, of course, is the same objection which is commonly adduced
against us by Prelatists. The substance of the answer which has

* Tittmann, Lib. Sj/mb. Eccles. I f Instil. Tkeol. Dngm. p. 1336 ;
Evangel, p. 271. | Vide p. 1340. Ed. 1724.

Sec. II.] TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 533

always been given by Presbyterians to this objection, whether
adduced by Romanists or by Prelatists, is this, — that, according
to the standard of God's word, there is no higher permanent office
in the church of Christ than the presbyterate, and that presby-
ters are fully competent to the execution of all necessary ecclesi-
astical functions. These two positions confirm and strengthen each
other. If Christ has not appointed any higher permanent office
in the church than the presbyterate, then presbyters must be com-
petent to the execution of all necessary ecclesiastical functions ;
and, on the other hand, if they are competent to the execution of
all necessary ecclesiastical functions, this is at least a very strong
presumption that no higher office, with peculiar and exclusive
functions, has been established. The functions which are assigned
exclusively to the episcopate by the Council of Trent, and by
Prelatists in general, and represented as at once its distinguish-
ing characteristics, and the proofs of its necessity, are confirmation
and ordination; and with respect to these two functions, the
Reformers, and Protestants in general, have maintained and
established these two positions : first, that confirmation is not a
necessary ecclesiastical function, — not a process which there is any
reason to believe that Christ intended to be carried on wherever
He has a church, in the ordinary administration of affairs ; and,
secondly, that though ordination, or the solemn setting apart of
men to the pastoral office, is necessary, and forms an indispens-
able part of the ordinary permanent business of the church,
there is nothing in Scripture which throws any doubt upon the
perfect competency of presbyters to ordain, — nay, that there is
quite enough to establish positively, not only the validity, but the
regularity, of the ordination which is performed, as Timothy's
was, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

These were the leading doctrines deduced from the sacred
Scriptures by the whole body of the Reformers upon the subject
of the government of the church ; and their most unequivocal
and decided testimony in favour of Presbyterian principles may
well enable us to regard with perfect indifference the anathemas
of the Council of Trent, and the denunciations of high church
Prelatists, who stigmatize Presbyterian ministers as unwarranted
and profane intruders into sacred offices and functions, and who
consign the members of Presbyterian churches to what they call
** uncovenanted mercies."

534 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

Sec. 3. — Popular Election of Office-bearers.

"While the Papists contended that the government of the
church was monarchical, in this sense, that it had permanently a
visible head upon earth, vested jure divino with a right to govern
it in all its affairs, — namely, the Bishop of Rome as the successor
of Peter, — the Reformers maintained that it was monarchical only
in this sense, that Christ was its head and ruler, — its only head
and ruler, — and contended that it had no visible head upon earth.
And with reference to the administration of the affairs of the
church as a visible organized society existing upon earth, the
Reformers were accustomed to contend, in opposition to the
Romanists, that the government which Christ had appointed for
His church was a combination of aristocracy and democracy.*
The aristocratic principle in the government of the church —
taking the word, of course, not in the popular sense in which it
is commonly employed among us, but in its proper philological
meaning, as denoting the exercise of the power of government
by a comparatively small and select body of those who are regarded
as best fitted for the discharge of the duty — is based upon the
clear distinction made in Scripture between the rulers or office-
bearers and the ordinary members of the church, — the warrant
given to the former to exercise a certain kind and degree of
authority, and the obligation imposed upon the latter to render a
certain measure of obedience and submission to those who are
set over them. The nature and extent of this authority, and of
the correlative submission, — the principles by which they are regu-
lated, and the classes or orders of persons in whom the authority
is vested, — we have already considered. We have now to advert
to the views maintained by the Reformers, in opposition to the
Church of Rome, with respect to the democratic element, as em-
bodied to some extent in the constitution of the church of Christ.
The position maintained by the Reformers — that the demo-
cratic principle was exhibited in the constitution of the Christian
church as well as the aristocratic — involved this general idea, that
the ordinary members of the church had some standing or influ-
ence, greater or less, direct or indirect, in the regulation of its
affairs ; and this general position they thought fully warranted by

* Rutherford's Pica for PauTs Preshyteri/, p. C3.

Sec. III.] POPULAR ELECTION OF OFFICE-BEARERS. 535

what is said in Scripture concerning the church of Christ. The
church, in its strict and proper sense, they were unanimous in de-
fining to be the coetus Jidelium, — the company of believers in the
Lord Jesus Christ ; and the visible church they regarded as com-
prehending all these, though containing also usually many who,
while professing to believe in Christ, were believers only in name.
The church, most strictly and properly so called, consisted of con-
verted men, — of men, every one of whom had been elected from
eternity to everlasting life, and every one of whom had been born
again by the mighty power of God, — created again in Christ Jesus
unto good works ; and the catholic visible church comprehended
in its embrace all the persons to whom this description applied
existing at any one time upon earth. Now this church is repre-
sented in Scripture as the spouse of Christ, the bride, the Lamb's
wife ; and glorious things are spoken of her. The great object of
Christ's assuming human nature, and suffering and dying, was,
that He might purchase to Himself this company as His peculiar
property, and that He might make full and effectual provision for
gathering them out of the world, and preparing them for sitting
down with Him on His throne in heaven. It was for the purpose
of calling these persons out from among the mass of men, and
fitting them for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, that He
established a visible church upon earth, — appointed ordinances, —
and made all the other arrangements of an external kind, by which
His visible church is characterized. These arrangements were all
directed to the welfare of His church, — they may be all regarded
as privileges which He has conferred upon it ; and they are so
regulated, that the manner in which the visible church — includ-
ing the various sections and divisions of which it may consist — dis-
charges its duties and executes its functions, exercises the powers
and improves the privileges He has conferred upon it, affects
materially the great end of His coming, and suffering, and dying.
Papists are accustomed to identify the church on earth with
Christ, its head, in the sense of its being not merely His representa-
tive, but clothed with all His power and authority, and entitled to
act — especially through its visible head — as He might and would
have acted had He been present. Protestants see no warrant in
Scripture for this mode of representing the church, and are always
careful to distinguish between the head and the body. The church
is not Christ, but only the Lamb's wife, invested with no discre-

536 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

tionary power over the house, but bound to be guided in all things
by the commands and directions of her Lord. Still the company
of believers, and the catholic visible society, which contains or
includes them, is invested with great dignity, and with exalted
privileges. Even the ministry was appointed and established for
its sake, and with a view to its welfare ; and is therefore to be
regarded as, in a certain sense, occupying a place subordinate to
the church. The whole Popish system of doctrine, upon the
subject of the government of the church, is based upon the op-
posite idea, as if the establishment of a church was intended for
the object of providing subjects for ecclesiastical rulers; while
Protestants have always regarded the ministry but as a means to
an end, appointed and established for the sake of the church.

It is this great principle of the Reformation that is indicated, as
I formerly mentioned, in the statement of our Confession of Faith,
— namely, that to this catholic visible church Christ hath given the
ministry, the ordinances, and the oracles of God. Christ has given
these things to the visible church, and therefore they belong to
it, — occupying thus, according to their respective natures and ob-
jects, a place, in some sense subordinate, as property is to its pos-
sessor. It was upon this general idea of the church, as represented
to us in Scripture, — the place it occupies, and the powers and privi-
leges conferred upon it, — that the Reformers pleaded the general
sentiment of their being something democratic in its constitution,
— that is, of the great body of the members composing it being
entitled to exert some influence in the regulation of its affairs.
They held, indeed, that the church was bound, by a regard to
Christ's authority, to have office-bearers, and could not lawfully or
beneficially continue without them, if it was possible to get them ;
and they held, also, that the ordinary exercise of the power of the
keys — the right of ordinarily administering the necessary business
of the church — was vested in these office-bearers. Still they also
held, in general, that all the power and authority necessary for
the church executing its functions and attaining its objects, lay
radically and fundamentally in the church itself, — in the company
of believers; so that, when necessity required, churches might
provide and establish office-bearers for themselves, and do what-
ever might be needful for securing all the objects connected with
their own welfare, which they were bound to aim at, and the
enjoyment of all the ordinances which Christ had appointed. It

Sec. III.] POPULAR ELECTION OF OFFICE-BEARERS. 537

was upon this ground that the Lutherans laid down, in the Articles
of Smalcald, — one of their symbolical books, — the following posi-
tions: "Ubicunque est Ecclesia, ibi est jus administrandi Evangelii.
Quare necesse, est Ecclesiam retinere jus vocandi, eligendi, et
ordinandi ministros. Et hoc jus est donum proprie datum Ecclesise,
quod nulla hum ana auctoritas Ecclesias eripere potest. Ubi est vera
Ecclesia, ibi necesse est esse jus eligendi et ordinandi ministros." *
These are positions which Calvin and the other Reformers
would not have disputed in the abstract, though Calvin, with
his usual comprehensive wisdom, was more careful, in expounding
this subject, to lay down, at the same time, the doctrine which he
believed to be also taught in Scripture as to the necessity of mini-
sters and other office-bearers, ex necessitate prcecepti, though not
ex necessitate medii, — the obligation of every church to have mini-
sters and office-bearers, to leave to them the ordinary administra-
tion of all divine ordinances, and to submit, with the limitations
formerly explained, to the exercise of their authority in the execu-
tion of the functions of their office. The great general principle
taught by the Reformers upon this subject, and generally held by
Presbyterian divines, is thus expressed by Turretine:f "Ecclesiis
data est potestas clavium. . . . Christus dat Ecclesise potestatem
ligandi et solvendi. . . . Fateor Ecclesiam hoc jus exercere per
Rectores sues. Sed in eo Pastores exercent jus quod competit
corpori, tanquam illud repraasentantes, ita ut jus illud radicaliter
pertineat semper ad corpus, et illi proprium sit ; ad Pastores vero
quoad usum et exercitium, quod nomine corporis fieri debet."
Notwithstanding the general admission of this principle, there
are indications among the Reformers of differences of opinion as
to the way in which the practical application of it ought to be
followed out, — some applying it more democratically than others,
— just as men have differed, and may honestly differ, in some of
their views upon this subject, who concur in holding the general
principle laid down in our Confession, that Christ has given the
ministry, ordinances, and oracles to the catholic visible church.

But there was one point on which the Reformers were of one
mind, and on this mainly they usually rested their general posi-
tion, that the government of the church exhibited a combination
of the democratic principle with the aristocratic ; and it was this,

* Tittmann, pp. 271, 272. f Turrettin., Loc. xviii. Qu. xxiv. sec, vii.

538 CHURCH GOVERNMENT, [Chap. XXVI.

— that the ordinary members of the church, or Christian congre-
gations, had a right to choose their own pastors and other office-
bearers ; and that, of course, a fortiori, they were fully entitled to
prevent any pastor from being intruded upon them, — that is,
placed over them without their consent, or against their will.
This doctrine was taught by all the Reformers ; and it was based
by them not only upon those portions of the New Testament
which bear directly upon the election of ecclesiastical office-
bearers, but also upon all the general views taught there concern-
ing the functions and privileges of the church, and the rights and
duties of individual Christians. This position, as to the views of
the Reformers, has been disputed ; but I have no hesitation in
saying, as I said in regard to the subject formerly discussed, that
this is not a question where there is room for an honest difference
of opinion among competent judges, and that those who deny the
position may, without injustice, be regarded either as asserting
what they do not believe, or as being, on some ground or other, —
whether it be ignorance, or want of sense or sobriety of judgment,
— incompetent to form an opinion upon the point. I do not mean
to enter into a detailed exposition of the evidence which might be
adduced upon the subject ; but I must make a few observations
upon the import of the doctrine, and the general grounds on
which we ascribe the maintenance of it to the Reformers, and
regard the denial of it as Popish.

The Reformers were Presbyterians, and of course understood
the position in a Presbyterian, and not in an Independent or Con-
gregational, sense, — that is, they understood it with a due regard
to the scriptural distinction between the position, powers, and
functions of the rulers, and of the ordinary members of the
church, — in other words, they did not exempt the people, in exer-
cising the power of election, from the ordinary control and censure
of the church courts ; they ascribed to the ordinary office-bearers
the right of presiding and moderating in elections, with full power
to prevent faction, confusion, and tumult ; and they ascribed also
to those in whom the right of ordaining was vested ordinarily
the right of judging for themselves whether or not the person
chosen by the people should be ordained, and, of course, of refus-
ing to ordain when they thought the choice a bad one. All this
their principles as Presbyterians required of them to maintain ;
and all this they openly asserted ; and when these considerations

Sec. III.] POPULAR ELECTION OF OFFICE-BEARERS. 539

are kept in remembrance, no person of ordinary intelligence and
discernment will find any difficulty in disposing of the evidence
that has sometimes been produced to show, that some of the Re-
formers denied the right of the Christian people to the election of
their own office-bearers, and sanctioned the right of their ecclesias-
tical rulers to intrude pastors upon them against their will.

There is one other consideration to be kept in view in judging
of the meaning of their statements, — namely, that they often
used the word election in the wider sense of vocation^ as compre-
hending the whole process by which men were made ministers,
and became qualified and authorized to execute the functions
of the ministry; and, accordingly, they sometimes ascribed the
election of pastors to the office-bearers, and sometimes to the
ordinary members, since both had a share in it ; and as the most
important departments of the general subject of the vocation of
pastors — including the process we commonly call licensing, the
whole judgment on qualifications, and the ultimate ordination —
belonged, upon Presbyterian principles, to the office-bearers, it
was not unusual to ascribe the election to them, and to speak
of the place and function of the congregation in the matter —
though it really comprehended the whole of what we commonly
understand by election in the more limited sense — under the
names of their consenting or approving. All this is conclusively
established by an examination of the First Book of Discipline of
our own church, and it is in full accordance with the sentiments
and language of the Reformers in general.

It is also to be remembered that the question is not, What was
the mode of appointing ministers that actually prevailed in the
Reformed churches? but, What were the doctrines and opinions
of the Reformers as to the way and manner in which they ought
to be appointed? It is not to be assumed that the Reformers
always succeeded in getting their views on these points fully
carried into effect. The Church of Scotland, though from the
beginning decidedly opposed to lay patronage, never succeeded —
except during the few years between 1649 and the Restoration —
in getting it entirely abolished ; and we have complaints from
some of the Continental Reformers of the civil authorities inter-
fering unwarrantably in this matter, and depriving congregations
of their just and scriptural rights. To ascertain the doctrines of
the Reformers on this point, we have to examine their confessions,

540 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

and those portions of their writings in wliich they formally ex-
pound and discuss the subject, — especially their commentaries
upon those passages of Scripture which have been usually re-
garded as bearing upon it ; and a careful and deliberate exami-
nation of these establishes beyond all reasonable or honest doubt,
that the Reformers maintained, as a scriptural principle, in
opposition to the Church of Rome, the right of the Christian
people to the choice of their own pastors and office-bearers. The
doctrine of the Lutheran churches is explicitly declared in the
extract we have quoted from the Articles of Smalcald. That of
the Reformed churches is set forth with equal clearness in the
following extract from the Second Helvetian Confession, which
was formally approved by most of them : " Vocentur et eli-
guntur electione ecclesiastica et legitima ministri ecclesiae : id est,
eliguntur religiose ab ecclesia, vel ad hoc deputatis ab ecclesia,
ordine justo, et absque turba, seditionibus et contentione." *
These are statements which can have but one meaning, which by
no process of trickery can be evaded or explained away. Calvin's
views upon the subject are embodied in the following explicit and
emphatic declaration : " Est impia ecclesiae spoliatio, quoties alicui
populo ingeritur episcopus, quem non petierit, vel saltem libera voce
approbarit."f It is utterly impossible to explain away this state-
ment, and it is in full accordance with the uniform and consistent
teaching of Calvin upon the subject in all his works. Not a single
sentence has ever been produced from him which contradicts, or
seems to contradict, the principle which is here so explicitly and
emphatically declared ; and no evidence has ever been produced,
that on this, or on any other, occasion he has used, or seemed to
use, the principal words which occur in this sentence, in any other
sense than that which they naturally and universally bear.

The sum and substance of all that has been alleged in order
to prove that the Reformers did not teach, as a scriptural prin-
ciple, the right of the Christian people to choose their own office-
bearers, just amounts to this, — that by election and consent they
did not mean election and consent, but something totally diffe-
rent ; and that, in discussing this subject, they used these words
in a sense in which they never were used by any other writers,

* Confess. Helvetic, cap. xviii.
(Corp. Lib. Symbol., Augusti 1827,
pp. 58, 59.)

t Instit. lib. iv. c. v. sec. 3.

Sec. III.] POPULAE ELECTION OF OFFICE-BEAEERS. 541

or upon any other occasion. As this is really the sum and sub-
stance of the only artifice by which it has been attempted to
evade the testimony of the Reformers upon this subject, it ought,
in common fairness, to be laid down as a distinct and definite
proposition, and proved by suitable and appropriate evidence. If
this were attempted, — as it ought to be, but as it never has been,
— the deplorable deficiency of the proof would become palpable
to every one ; and no man of ordinary intelligence and integrity
would be able to resist the conclusion, that if it be possible to
embody in words an unequivocal assertion that the Christian
people are entitled, upon scriptural grounds, to choose their own
pastors, the Reformers have done so, and have held up this as an
important truth, in opposition to the doctrines and practices of
the Church of Rome.

This is, in substance, the same artifice by which Popish writers
have attempted to evade the evidence adduced to prove that the
early church adopted and acted upon the principles of popular
election and non-intrusion ; but the artifice is less discreditable
when attempted in the case of the early church than in that of
the Reformers. The evidence that the early church held the
same views upon this subject as the Reformers did, is satisfactory
and conclusive ; and the Reformers were accustomed to appeal to
this evidence in opposing the Romanists upon this point, just as
we do. But the evidence of the doctrine of the early church, at
least upon the point of election, — for the proof that, even so late
as the fifth and sixth centuries, the principles of non-intrusion
in the natural, legitimate, and honest sense of it was the law of
the church, is altogether beyond the reach of cavil, and has ac-
cordingly been admitted both by Papists and Episcopalians, — is
less explicit than that of the Reformers ; and the reason is, that
in the early church the subject was not discussed, just because no
controversy had arisen regarding it ; whereas the Reformers had
to oppose and refute the doctrine and practice of the Church of
Rome upon the subject, and were thus led to be more full and
explicit in their statements. Indeed, even if their particular
statements had been much less explicit than they are, no one who
has an intelligent acquaintance with the status qucestionis in the
controversy between them and the Romanists on the subject, can
have any doubt that they maintained the principle of popular
election and non-intrusion. It is perfectly certain, and does not

542 CHUECH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

admit of any dispute, that the Church of Rome conceded then,
and concedes still, in doctrine and argument, as large an amount
of influence to the people in the appointment of their pastors, as is
at present enjoyed by congregations in the Established Churches
of this country ; and that the grounds taken in argument by the
defenders of the state of things which prevails in these institu-
tions, are precisely, in all respects, those which have been taken
by Popish writers, at least in defending intrusion. This being
the case, it is plain that, if the Reformers had held the views
which have been sometimes ascribed to them, there would not,
and could not, have been any controversy between them and the
Church of Rome upon this point. It is utterly impossible for
the defenders of these views to point out any material distinction
between them, and those which are held by the Church of Rome,
and have been defended by all Popish writers. And yet we not
only know that there was a controversy between the Reformers
and the Romanists; but we can easily prove that the views
which we hold were those maintained by the Reformers in this
controversy, and that the views of the Romanists were precisely,
and in all respects, those held by our opponents.

It is true of this subject of election and consent, as of the
identity of bishop and presbyter formerly discussed, and perhaps
still more fully in this case than the former, that traces and evi-
dences of the scriptural primitive practice continued to subsist,
and subsist still, in the Church of Rome, very much in the same
way as the form of a call subsists in the Established Church,
where the reality is gone. The doctrine of the necessity of the
election or consent of the people in the appointment of ministers,
as a doctrine unquestionably taught by the Reformers, was taken
up in the Council of Trent, and discussed, and condemned there;
and F. Paul has recorded * a very curious speech made there on
that occasion by a canon of Valentia, in which — after admitting
that popular election prevailed in the early church, but alleging
that this was merely a special indulgence granted for a time, and
afterwards very properly taken away by the Popes; and after
denouncing the audacity of the modern heretics — that is, the
Reformers — in reviving this most dangerous heresy, which was
fitted to ruin the church — he not only urged that the council

* Liv. vii. sec. vii.

Sec. III.] POPULAR ELECTION OF OFFICE-BEAREKS. 543

should condemn it, but, further, that they should erase from their
liturgical books a number of passages which had been handed
down from ancient times, and which plainly suggested and proved
the ancient practice of the election and consent of the people, and
thus afforded a strong handle to heretics. The council adopted
the first part of his proposal, and anathematized the Protestant
heresy of the necessity of the people's consent ; but they did not
venture to adopt the second. They would, no doubt, have been
very glad to have got quit of the passages which the worthy
canon quoted from the Pontificale, and which afforded clear indi-
cations of the ancient practice, and plainly condemned their own ;
but they thought it more prudent to let the passages stand, and
to leave to the heretical defenders of the necessity of the people's
consent, the handle of having these passages to quote, than the
handle of their having been erased.

The only thing possessed of plausibility that has been produced
in opposition to the assertion that the Reformers held the doctrine
of popular election, is a letter of Beza's, which has been subjected
of late to a good deal of discussion ; and I refer to it at present,
not because I can discuss its meaning, — this I have done fully in
another form,* — but because it is connected with the important
historical fact, that in 1562, and again in 1572, these views of
church government, which have since been called Independent or
Congregational, having been broached by Morellius, or Merely,
were brought under the cognizance of the Protestant Church of
France, and were condemned by its supreme judicatory, with
the general concurrence of the Reformed churches. Beza, like
Calvin, has most unequivocally and explicitly asserted the right
of the Christian people to choose their own pastors ; but one or
two vague and ambiguous expressions occur in this letter, and in
another passage of his works, which have been eagerly laid hold
of as grounds for evading his express declarations, and ascribing
to him the doctrine of the Church of Rome, as opposed by Calvin
and himself and the other Reformers. Some importance has been
justly attached, in examining the statements produced from this
letter of Beza, to the question. Whether the direct and primary
subject of the letter was the election of office-bearers, or the whole
power and authority ascribed to the people in the regulation of

* In reply to Sir Wm. Hamilton's Be not Martyrs ly Mistake. See Dis-
cussions on Church Principles^ p. 470. — Edrs.

544 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

ecclesiastical affairs by Morellius and the Independents. It is only
upon the supposition that the proper primary subject of the letter
is popular election, and not the whole power ascribed to the people
by the Independents, — including, of course, popular election, — that
the arguments of those who would represent Beza as sanctioning
the Popish principle of intrusion, are possessed of anything like
plausibility. Now the evidence is perfectly conclusive, and can-
not fail to be seen and felt by any one who is at all acquainted
with the nature of the controversy which Morellius excited in the
Reformed Church of France, that Beza's letter was directed not
against the principle of popular election, in the sense in which it
has been generally held by Presbyterians, but against the whole
power ascribed by the Independents to the people in the regula-
tion of all ecclesiastical affairs, — including, of course, the election
of office-bearers, but comprehending a great deal more. And this
affords a satisfactory explanation of one or two vague and am-
biguous expressions in the letter, which might otherwise have had
the appearance of being scarcely reconcilable with the clear and
explicit declarations made by Beza, when treating of the subject
of election, formally and of set purpose. The assertion which has
been recently made, that " the problem there mooted is limited
exclusively to the share which the congregation at large ought
to have in the election of pastors," and that " all has reference
to this single point alone," is one of those astounding declarations
of which one does not know well what to say, and which almost
compel us, whether we will or not, to doubt either the common
sense or the common honesty of the men who make them.*

But the important point to which I wish to direct attention,
is, that the Protestant Church of France — and the Church of
Geneva and the other Reformed churches cordially concurred
with them in the matter — did, while condemning the Independent
views of Morellius, as involving an extension of the democratic
principle beyond what the Scripture warranted, continue to assert
and maintain, as a scriptural doctrine, the principle of popular
election, and the necessity of the people's consent. The principle
of non-intrusion, in the natural and legitimate sense of it, was
set forth in the discipline of the Reformed Church of France,
both before and after their condemnation of Morellius, so clearly

* See Discussions on Church Principles. — Edks.

Sec. IV.] CONGREGATIONALISM, OR INDEPENDENCY. 545

and explicitly as to preclude the possibility of an honest attempt
to dispute it. And, what is peculiarly important, the right of
the people to choose their own pastors is openly maintained in a
work written for the express purpose of refuting Morellius, at the
command of the National Synod, and published in their name
by Sadeel or Chandieu. This fact is perfectly conclusive upon
the question, and lies altogether beyond the reach of cavil or
evasion. And this important general consideration holds true
equally of the Scottish Presbyterians at the time of the West-
minster Assembly, — namely, that while strenuously opposing the
views of the Independents in regard to the general subject of
church government, they continued to assert the great Reforma-
tion principle of the scriptural right of the people to the election
of their own office-bearers. Some of the English Presbyterians,
indeed, of that period, yielded to the perverting influence of their
controversy with the Independents, and of the circumstances of
their country, and gave some indications of sacrificing or com-
promising this doctrine of the Reformation. But the Scotch
Commissioners in the Westminster Assembly, and the Church of
Scotland in general, acted a steadier and more consistent part,
— adhering faithfully to the scriptural views of the Reformers,
and transmitting them to us, to be asserted and maintained, as a
portion of God's revealed truth, and intimately connected — as
experience has abundantly proved — with the best interests and
the real welfare of the church of Christ.

Sec. 4. — Congregationalism^ or Independency.

In discussing the subject of the Council at Jerusalem, I
entered with some detail into the leading points of difference
between Presbyterians and Congregationalists on the subject of
church government. For this reason, I do not intend now to
dwell upon this topic at any length, but merely to put together
a few observations regarding it.

Presbytery occupies the golden mean between Prelacy on the
one hand, and Congregationalism on the other; holding some
principles in regard to the government of the church in common
with Prelatists against the Congregationalists, and others in com-
mon with Congregationalists against the Prelatists. The chief
points in which Presbyterians agree with Prelatists, in opposition

3 — VOL. II. 2 M

546 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

to Congregation alists, are these : in denying that each congre-
gation possesses ordinarily a right, and a divine right, to entire
and absolute independence in the regulation of all its affairs ; in
ascribing the ordinary power of government in each congregation
to the office-bearers, as distinguished from the ordinary members ;
and in maintaining the lawfulness and propriety of such a union
or organization of different congregations together, as affords
warrant and ground for the exercise of a certain measure of
authoritative control by ecclesiastical office-bearers over a number
of associated congregations.

Prelatists and Presbyterians concur in maintaining, in oppo-
sition to Congregationalists, these great general principles. They
do not consider themselves called upon to concede to the whole
body of the ordinary members of a congregation the right of
ultimately deciding all questions relating to its affairs, and entire
sufficiency for the regular performance of every function needful
for the preservation of the church, and the administration of all
necessary ecclesiastical business ; and they refuse to concede to
each congregation, regarded collectively and as one body, entire
independence of all authority or control, exercised by any but its
own members. They hold that the right, or rather the ordinary
exercise of the right, of administering the necessary business of
each congregation, is vested, not in the whole members of the
congregation, but in its office-bearers (though Presbyterians —
not Episcopalians — have generally held that each congregation
has the right of choosing these office-bearers) ; and that a wider
association of office-bearers is entitled to exercise jurisdiction over
each and every one of the congregations which may be directly
or indirectly represented in it. These general views may be said
to be held both by Prelatists and Presbyterians, in opposition to
Congregationalists ; and are regarded by them as sanctioned by
scriptural statements and apostolic practice, and as much more
accordant than the opposite views with the scriptural representa-
tions of the character and constitution of the church of Christ, —
and especially with the representations given us there of the
church as a united, combined, organized body, whose different
parts or sections should be closely and intimately linked to-
gether.

Presbyterians and Congregationalists concur in holding, in
opposition to Episcopalians, that the apostles established only two

Sec. IV.] CONGREGATIONALISM, OR INDEPENDENCY. 547

orders of office-bearers in the church, — namely, presbyters and
deacons ; while modern Congregationalists usually regard as un-
warranted the distinction which Presbyterians make among pres-
byters or elders, by dividing them into two classes, one of whom
only rule, and the other both teach and rule. Presbyterians may
thus be said to have the concui'rence of Episcopalians in the
leading points in which they differ from the Congregationalists,
and the concurrence of the Congregationalists in the leading
points in which they differ from the Episcopalians. The only
subject of any material importance affecting the government of
the church on which Episcopalians and Congregationalists gene-
rally concur in opposition to Presbyterians, is with respect to the
scriptural warrant for the office of what we commonly call ruling^
as distinguished from teaching^ elders ; and the weight due to this
concurrence, in opposition to our views, — looking at it simply as a
question of authority, — is very greatly diminished by the fact that
the most eminent of the early defenders of Congregational prin-
ciples— such as Thomas Goodwin, John Cotton, and the great Dr.
John Owen — were decidedly in favour of the scriptural authority
for this office ; and that Owen has declared of the principal passage
on which the Presbyterian doctrine on this subject is founded,*
that it is a text "of uncontrollable evidence" (in support of the
office of ruling elder), " if it had anything to conflict withal but
•prejudices and interest." f

The two leading points in which Congregationalists differ
•from Presbyterians and Episcopalians upon the subject of church
government, are sometimes represented as expressed or indicated

* 1 Tim. V. 17.

t Owen's True Nature of a Gospel
Churchy c. vii. p. 484, of the 20th vol.
of Russell's edition. See Brown's Vin-
dication of the Presbyterian Form of
Church Government, Letter ix. p. 149,
and Letter xi. pp. 189, 190. Similar
admissions from some of the old di-
vines of the Church of England, espe-
cially Whitgift and Whittaker, given
in Voetius and Jameson, as cited
below. Treatise of New England
Churches as to Ruling Elders, in
Punchard's View of Congregational-
ism, p. 78. Full discussion of the sub-
ject of Rijling Elders in Voetii Politica

Ecclesiastica, Pars ii. lib. ii. ; Tract,
iii. c. iv. V. vi. Reference to autho-
rities, c. iv. as above, torn. iii. pp.
457-462. Jameson's Cyprianus Iso-
timus, p. 540. Bucer, Be Guberna-
tione Ecclesix. Miller on the Office
of the Ruling Elder. King on do.,
and his Exposition and Defence of
Presbyterian Church Government.
Smyth (of Charleston) on the Name,
Nature, and Function of Ruling Elders.
— His object is to prove that they are
not presbyters, and that, as repre-
sentatives of the people, their office
should be temporary. This view is
also held by Dr. Hodge of Princeton.

548 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

by the two principal designations by which they are usually known,
— namely, "Congregationalists" and "Independents." The word
Congregationalist, under this idea, indicates more immediately
that they hold that the body of the ordinary members of the
church possesses the right of regulating all the affairs of the
congregation, as distinguished from the office-bearers, to whom
this right is ascribed by the Presbyterians ; while the word
"Independents" indicates more immediately their other leading
principle, — namely, that each congregation, viewed collectively
as one body, including the office-bearers, is independent of all
external authority or control, — fully adequate of itself for pre-
serving and perpetuating all church offices, and executing all
church functions, and subject to no control from any other body
whatever. This distinction is at least useful and convenient, as
assisting us in conceiving rightly, and in remembering readily,
the leading points in which, as Presbyterians, we differ in opinion
from this section of the church of Christ.

These peculiar and distinctive principles of modern Indepen-
dents or Congregationalists were not explicitly professed, and of
course were neither formally defended nor assailed, in the early
church. As a subject of controversial discussion, they are wholly
of modern origin. They seem to have been first publicly and
distinctly broached, as exhibiting the scriptural views of the con-
stitution and government of the church, by J. B. Morellius or
Merely, who was connected with the Reformed Church of France,
and whose work on the subject, entitled Traicte de la Discipline
et Police Chretienne, was published, at Lyons in 1561, and was
soon thereafter condemned by the National Synod at Orleans
in 1562, and again at Nismes in 1572. They were embraced
also by Ramus, the celebrated philosopher, who was killed in the
massacre of St. Bartholomew ; but they made no permanent im-
pression upon the French Protestants. It was not till about
twenty or thirty years later, near the end of the sixteenth cen-
tury, that these views were brought out and practically acted
upon in this country, by some persons who might be considered
as offshoots of the true original English Puritans, and who were
known for a time under the name of Brownists. These views
have not been embraced to any cpnsiderable extent among the
churches of Christ, and indeed scarcely by any except the de-
scendants of those who first broached them in this country,

Sec. IV.] CONGREGATIONALISM, OR INDEPENDENCY. 549

who are a more numerous body now in the United States than in
Great Britain.*

It is triie, indeed, also, that we have not much controversial
discussion in regard to Episcopacy and Presbytery before the
Reformation ; but we have at least a pretty full and formal state-
ment of the argument in favour of these two systems as early
as the fourth century, — of the scriptural argument in favour of
Presbytery by Jerome, usually regarded as the most learned
of the fathers, — and of the argument in favour of Prelacy by
Epiphanius in reply to ^rius. And it may be worth while to
observe, in passing, that Jerome's scriptural argument for Pres-
bytery is still generally regarded by Presbyterians as a conclusive
and unanswerable defence of their cause ; while the earliest de-
fence of Prelacy, by Epiphanius, has been admitted by some of
the ablest defenders of Prelacy — such as Cardinal Bellarmine,
De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, and Hooker — to be weak
and unsatisfactory, though they have not, I think, been able to
devise anything that was greatly superior to it.

There is not much connected with the history of the original
publication and maintenance of Independent views of church
government to commend them to a favourable reception. They
were, however, taken up in substance in the seventeenth century
by some men who are entitled to the highest respect, and they
were embraced and defended very ably in their leading principles,
as we have stated them, by Dr. Owen, — certainly one of the very
weightiest names in the history of the church, — though he did not
carry them out so far as most modern Independents have done.
It is true, likewise, that, in the history of modern ecclesiastical
literature, there is a good deal to which Independents may not
unreasonably refer, as affording pretty strong presumptions, so far
as mere authority goes, in favour of their peculiar views. I allude
here particularly to the fact that several very eminent investi-
gators of the history of the church, who did not themselves make
a profession of Congregational principles, have conceded that the

* On the history of these views, see
Punchard's History of Congregation-
alism, 1841, and Hanbury's Historical
Memorials relating to the Indepen-
dents, vol. i. 1839. On Morely,
see Hang's La France Protestante ;
Aymon, Tons les Synodes Nationaux,

tome i. pp. 29, 122-124. On Ramus,
Haag, La Ramie; Beza, Epistolse,
Epist. Ixvii. Ixviii. Bayle, tome ill.
Art. Ramus. Waddington's Ramus,
Sa vie, ses ecrits, et ses opinions, 1855,
pp. 239-248, 434.

550

CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

[Chap. XXVI.

practice of the early church, from the time immediately succeed-
ing that of the apostles, was either wholly or in a great measure
iu accordance with that of Congregation alists. Instances of this
are Sir Peter King, afterwards Lord Chancellor, Mosheim, Dr.
Campbell of Aberdeen, and Neander.* These liien have all made
statements in regard to the constitution and government of the
primitive church, which Independents are fairly entitled to plead,
as affording some countenance to the peculiar views which they
hold in opposition to Presbyterians, though at the same time it
should be noted, as holding true of all these men, that they did
not regard even apostolic practice upon this subject as binding
upon the church in succeeding ages. Still the opinion they
expressed as to the general practice of the church in the first and
second centuries, must be admitted to lend some countenance to
the views commonly held upon this subject by Congregation alists,
and to be well fitted, at once from the general eminence of the
men, and their ecclesiastical relations, to prepossess men's minds
in favour of Independency. These eminent men have, more or
less fully and explicitly, asserted that, for the first century at
least, each congregation — that is, the whole members of it, and
not merely its office-bearers — transacted in common the whole of
the ordinary necessary ecclesiastical business, including the exer-
cise of discipline, and that each congregation was wholly inde-
pendent of every other, and subject to no control from any party
beyond or without itself.

The fundamental argument in favour of Congregational prin-
ciples is the position, that the only two senses of the word church
in the New Testament — the only two ideas which it warrants us
in attaching to that word — are, either a single congregation, or
the whole collective body of Christ's people, real or professed ;
and Dr. Campbell, though he continued all his days a minister of
the Church of Scotland, and was a most assiduous and ostentatious
proclaimer of his own integrity and candour, has distinctly con-

* King, in his Inquiry into the
Constitution of the Primitive Churchy
— Mosheim, in his Church History and
Commentaries, — Campbell, in his Lec-
tures on Ecclesiastical History, — and
Neander, in his Planting and Training
of the Christian. Church. See the tes-
timonies of these men, and of others,

collected in Pim chard's Vicrv of ^'■Con-
gregationalism,'''' Part iii., Andover
1844. See also Coleman's Church
without a Bishop; or, The Apos-
tolical and Primitive Church, Popular
in its Government, and Simple in its
Worship, c. iii.

Sec. IV.] CONGREGATIONALISM, OR INDEPENDENCY. 551

ceded this to them. I had formerly occasion to explain this point,
in discussing the general subject of the Scripture doctrine con-
cerning the church, and to illustrate the grounds on which Pres-
byterians generally deny this position, and maintain that, while no
doubt these are the most usual and ordinary meanings in Scripture,
there is also sufficient scriptural warrant for applying the word
iKKXrjala, in the singular number, to a plurality of congregations
associated together and represented as a church, — that is, as one
church, because subject to one Presbyterial government. It must
be remembered, that if this proposition be established, which is
laid down in our Form of Church Government, — namely, " That
the Scripture doth hold forth that many particular congregations
may be under one Presbyterial government," — the chief medium
of its probation being this, that the Christians at Jerusalem, who
must have consisted of many congregations, are still called "a
church" in the singular, and as a church had elders and rulers
in common, — then the question between Presbyterians and Con-
gregationalists is settled, in so far as concerns the leading principle
of the latter, which has given origin to the name Independents.
Another case of the application of eKKkr^crla^ in the singular, to
a number of churches collectively, is to be found in the reading
adopted in Acts ix. 31, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles.*
The Congregationalists do not deny that the Christians at Jeru-
salem and Ephesus are spoken of as a church, — that is, as one
church ; but they deny that they consisted of several distinct
congregations. The evidence of this, however, is, we think, in
the case of Jerusalem, overwhelmingly conclusive, and in the
case of Ephesus, sufficient and satisfactory; and, on this par-
ticular point of the existence of a plurality of congregations in
Jerusalem, Mosheim is, as I formerly mentioned, very decided in
favour of the common Presbyterian view.f

I have likewise had occasion to show, in examining the Council
of Jerusalem, recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, and
illustrating the lessons it teaches us in regard to the government
of the church and the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, that
there is there a marked distinction exhibited between the position
and functions of office-bearers and of ordinary members in decid-

* Vide Tregelles' Account of the I f Commentarii, p. 116.
Printed Text of the Greek N. T. p. 269. |

552 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

ing upon ecclesiastical questions, and a clear sanction given t<r
two important principles vitally affecting the subject we are now
considering, — namely, first, that the proper judicial power of
determining questions which arise in the church is vested in the
office-bearers, and not in the ordinary members ; and, secondly,
that an assembly of office-bearers may lawfully possess and exer-
cise authoritative control over particular congregations, and may
authoritatively determine questions which may have arisen in any
of the congregations over whom they have jurisdiction. I need
not now go back upon these points ; but would merely remark that
Presbyterians contend that these principles are in accordance with
all that is taught us in the New Testament, concerning the general
character of the functions of the church, and the principles by
which its affairs ought to be regulated, — concerning the rights,
functions, and duties of office-bearers, and the relation between
them and the ordinary members of the church, — and are not con-
tradicted by anything taught there upon these subjects. Presby-
terians have generally held that there is not sufficient scriptural
warrant for ascribing to the members, as distinguished from the
office-bearers of the church, any proper judicial authority in de-
ciding the questions that may arise in the ordinary administration
of ecclesiastical affairs. But they have also generally held, and,
as they think, in perfect accordance with this principle, first, that
congregations have a right to choose their own office-bearers ;
and, secondly, that they ought to be consulted in regard to the
more important acts of ecclesiastical discipline by which they are
affected ; and that their consent and concurrence in them should
be laboured for in the exercise of all appropriate means, and
should, if possible, be obtained. Both Papists and Congrega-
tionalists have accused them of inconsistency, in denying to the
people all judicial authority, on the one hand, and conceding
to them the election of their own office-bearers on the other, —
Papists saying, that since Presbyterians reject the one, they ought,
in consistency, to reject both ; and Congregationalists — using the
same medium of probation — arguing that, since they concede one,
they ought to concede both. But it is easy enough to show, in
opposition to these two different classes of adversaries, that these
two things are by no means identical, and that the one which is
conceded does not by any means infer the one which is denied,
in the nature of the case. And in regard to the scriptural evi-

Sec. IV.] CONGREGATIONALISM, OR INDEPENDENCY. 553

dence bearing upon these two subjects respectively, Presbyterians
have always contended that there is sufficient evidence of the one
and not of the other, — that the Scripture assigns to the ordinary
members of the church a definite and influential place in the ap-
pointment of their own office-bearers, which it does not assign to
them in any other department of ecclesiastical affairs.

We likewise contend, in opposition to Congregationalists, and
to the high authorities formerly referred to, that there is nothing,
in what has come down to us of the history and documents of
the primitive church, which assigns to congregations a higher
or wider power or influence in the regulation of the affairs of the
church, than Presbyterians, as above stated, concede to them on
scriptural grounds. So far as the Congregational principle is
concerned, as distinguished from the Independent, according to
the explanation formerly given, there is nothing in primitive an-
tiquity which shows that the people had at that time any greater
standing or influence in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs than
what is fully provided for, and exhausted by, the Presbyterian
principles, — that they have a right to choose their own office-
bearers, and that their consent and concurrence were sought, and
usually obtained, in all the decisions and important acts of dis-
cipline which affected them. It is plain enough that the actual
amount of prominence and influence which the fair application
of these Presbyterian principles, without the Congregational one,
would give to congregations in the ordinary regulation of ecclesi-
astical affairs, might vary considerably in its outward manifesta-
tions, according to the general condition and circumstances of the
church ; and it is also plain, that the whole condition and circum-
stances of the primitive church were such as tended powerfully
to give to congregations a larger amount of prominence and influ-
ence than what might be theoretically or doctrinally assigned to
them. Keeping this consideration in view, it becomes, we think,
very plain, that there is nothing in the records of primitive anti-
quity which affords any proof that the people generally had more
influence or authority in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs
than is consistent with Presbyterian principles.

Mosheim says, on this subject,* " It was the assembly of the
people, which chose their own rulers and teachers, or received

* Cent, i. P. ii. c. ii. s. vi. (Maclaine's Translation).

554 CHUECH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

them by a free and authoritative consent, when recommended by
others." Tl)is is true ; Clement's Epistle proves it, and Presby-
terians concede it. "But," Mosheim goes on to say, "the same
people rejected or confirmed by their suffrages, the laws that were
proposed by their rulers to the assembly ; excommunicated pro-
fligate and unworthy members of the church, restored the penitent
to their forfeited privileges, passed judgment upon the different
subjects of controversy and dissension that arose in their commu-
nity ; examined and decided the disputes which happened between
the elders and deacons ; and, in a word, exercised all that authority
which belongs to such as are invested with the sovereign power."
Now I have never seen anything like evidence of this statement
produced. As the statement is applied to the first century, the
only source from which evidence of it could be derived is the
writings of the apostolic fathers ; and there is certainly nothing
in their works from which conclusions so strong and sweeping can
be legitimately deduced. The truth is, that we have no evidence
of any such disputes or dissensions arising during this period as
were likely to produce or to indicate anything precise or definite as
to the rightful limits of competing jurisdictions ; and no amount
or extent of mere de facto concurrence between office-bearers and
congregations in the regulation of ecclesiastical matters, can afford
any valid objection to our Presbyterian principles.

As to the other peculiar principle held by Congregationalists,
— that which is more immediately indicated by the name Inde-
pendents,— it is commonly put in this form : that in the primi-
tive church all the churches or congregations were independent
of each other; that they all possessed equal rights; and that no
one congregation possessed any jurisdiction or control over any
other. This statement is undoubtedly true ; but there is nothing
in it inconsistent with Presbyterian principles, though many Con-
gregationalists seem to regard it as virtually identical with their
peculiar view upon this subject. Presbyterians maintain, that
as all pastors are equal, so all congregations are equal ; that
as no one pastor has any jurisdiction over any other, so this
liolds equally true of congregations ; that they are all possessed
of equal rights and authority. The party to whom they ascribe
a certain measure of control over a congregation, is not another
congregation or its representatives, but a body which compre-
hends in it, virtually and representatively, many congregations

Sec. IV.] CONGREGATIONALISM, OR INDEPENDENCY. 555

including the particular congregation whose affairs may be the
immediate subject of consideration. The Council of Jerusalem
is not supposed by Presbyterians to exhibit the Church of Jeru-
salem as exercising jurisdiction over the church at Antioch, but
as being a body met at Jerusalem, which, in virtue of the ele-
ments of which it was composed, represented, and was entitled
to exercise jurisdiction equally over, the particular churches of
Jerusalem and Antioch, and indeed, as many believe, over other
churches represented by it. This general principle pervades all
Presbyterian arrangements. Each pastor, each congregation,
each classical assembly, and each synodical assembly, is equal to,
and independent of, any other one of the same species or degree.
They all possess equal rights. A classical assembly, or presby-
tery, possesses jurisdiction over a number of pastors, and a num-
ber of congregations, just because it comprehends or includes,
virtually or representatively, all these pastors and all these con-
gregations ; and the same principle applies to synods, or other
superior church courts, in relation to presbyteries. It is not to
the purpose, then, to allege and to prove, that in the primitive
church all congregations were equal to, and independent of, each
other, — possessed of equal authority or jurisdiction. There is
nothing in this which is in the least inconsistent with the prin-
ciples and the practice of Presbyterians, or which furnishes any
countenance to the views of the Independents. And yet we
believe that this is all that has been, or can be, proved in regard
to the general state or condition of the primitive churches.

Mosheim, after asserting the independence and equality of all
the congregations in the first century, goes on to say, what is
more relevant to the subject we are now considering : * " Nor
does there even appear in this first century, the smallest trace
of that association of provincial churches, from which councils
and metropolitans derive their origin." Now the extent and the
regularity to which congregations may be associated under pres-
byterial government and arrangements, must of course depend,
to some extent, upon the condition of the church in general, in
the particular age and country, and on the general condition of
the community. The condition of the church and of the world,
in the apostolic age, and in that immediately following it, was

* Cent. i. P. ii. c. ii. s. xiv.

556 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. [Chap. XXVI.

certainly not favourable to the general diffusion of the detailed
development of Presbyterian organization and arrangements.
We have no doubt that a 'congregation of professing Christians
may be so placed in providence, as to be warranted, upon the
ground of the general principles taught in Scripture concerning
the rights and prerogatives of the church, to organize itself in
Independency, without actual subjection to Presbyterial govern-
ment, and to provide within itself for the execution of all eccle-
siastical functions, and for its own perpetuation ; and we do not
dispute that such churches or congregations existed in early times;
but if the general principle of such association and organization
is sanctioned by Scripture, and if some specimens of it are set
before us there, in apostolic practice, — and this, we think, Pres-
byterians have satisfactorily established, — then we are entitled to
say that this associated and organized condition is the complete,
normal, and perfect state of the church, which ought ever to be
aimed at, and, as far as circumstances and opportunities admit of
it, carried out and exhibited in practice. And there is nothing
in the records of primitive antiquity, which affords any ground
for denying that this scriptural and Presbyterian principle was
exhibited and acted upon as far as the general condition of the
church and the world rendered this practicable ; and, on the
contrary, there is not a little which favours the idea that this was
aimed at, and was to some extent accomplished. It is not, of
course, contended that Presbyterian organization and arrange-
ments, in their complete and detailed development, were univer-
sally diffused in the primitive church ; but there is good ground
to believe that our fundamental principles, as indicated in Scrip-
ture, were acted upon as far as circumstances admitted of it, —
and that very soouj as the natural and appropriate result of scrip-
tural sentiment and feeling prevailing among Christians as to the
general character and constitution of the church, as to the right
relation of particular churches to each other, and as to the conse-
quence of filling up and following out arrangements which the
apostles had sanctioned, the church in general became^ in its
leading features and arrangements, and continued to be, until the
original government of the church was changed by the gradual
growth of Prelacy, substantially Presbyterian.*

* The books on this subject are just those we mentioned when treating of
the Council of Jerusalem.

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY.

Sec. 1. — The Civil Magistrate and Religion.

The general subject of the relation that ought to subsist be-
tween the state and the church, or between the civil and eccle-
siastical authorities, had been discussed before the Reformation,
usually under the designation of the controversy inter imperium
et sacerdotium ; and I have had occasion to give some account of
the very defective and imperfect manner in which the topic was
then commonly treated : the one party defending the Popish
extreme of the subjection of the civil to the ecclesiastical, and
the other the opposite extreme of the subjection of the ecclesias-
tical to the civil, — which came afterwards to be commonly called
among Protestants by the name of Erastianism ; while scarcely
any had a clear perception of the true scriptural Presbyterian
doctrine of the mutual independence of the civil and the eccle-
siastical authorities, — of the supremacy of each in its own pro-
vince, or of the true principle of connection between them, as
described by the expressions, a co-ordination of powers, and a
mutual subordination of persons.

I have already pointed out the clear and definite line of de-
marcation between Popish principles upon this subject, and those
which have been usually maintained by Presbyterians as scrip-
tural ; and exposed the weakness and unfairness of the common
Episcopalian and Erastian plan of dealing with the arguments in
support of the only points in which Papists and Presbyterians
agree, — namely, the unlawfulness of the civil authorities assuming
and exercising jurisdiction or authoritative control in ecclesiastical
matters, — the plan just consisting in evading the arguments upon
the merits, and attempting, as a substitute, to make something, as
a means of exciting prejudice, of the mere fact, that thus far, and

558 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

upon this point, Presbyterians and Papists do agree. I wish now
to make some remarks on the way in which this subject was stated
and discussed at the period of the Reformation.

The circumstances in which the Reformers were placed in
providence, while such as naturally and necessarily led them to
speak and write on the subject of the civil magistrate's interfering
in religious and ecclesiastical matters, were not by any means
favourable to the object of their forming precisely accurate and
definite opinions regarding it. In the Church of Rome the two
jurisdictions were wholly confounded, — the civil magistrate being
deprived of all independent authority, and being required or
obliged to act as the mere servant of the church, the executor of
her sentences, irrespective of his own judgment or conviction, —
or the clergy themselves having assumed, and exercising, civil as
well as ecclesiastical power and functions. The Reformers were,
on this account, exposed, like the ante-Reformation defenders of
the rights of the empire against the priesthood, to some temptation
to extend unduly the rights of the magistrate in religious matters.
They had, besides, generally speaking, more to expect in the way
of protection and support to themselves, and of countenance and
encouragement to the truth which they proclaimed, from the civil
than from the ecclesiastical authorities. When any of the civil
rulers did espouse the cause of the Reformation, there was, in
consequence of the thorough mixing up of things civil and things
ecclesiastical, and the entire subjection of the former to the latter,
which had previously obtained, a necessity for their doing a great
deal, and making many important alterations, in ecclesiastical
matters, in opposition to the existing ecclesiastical authorities ; and
this the Reformers would scarcely fail to approve and defend.
All this produced very naturally a tendency, on the part of the
Reformers, to state the powers and rights of the civil magistrate
with respect to religious matters in the fullest and strongest terms.
On this account, it would not be in the least surprising if the first
Reformers, especially in the early part of their labours, when some
of the civil authorities becjan to exert themselves in the cause of
the Reformation, had spoken of the power of civil rulers in these
matters in somewhat wide and incautious terms ; and also that, as
this general topic did not become at that period a subject of full
and formal controversial discussion, some of them had never
attained to perfect precision and accuracy in their opinions re-

Sec. I.] THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE AND RELIGION. 559

garding it. Now this, we find, was to some extent the case ; and
on this account we cannot appeal with the same confidence to
what may be called the testimony of the Reformers upon this
subject, as upon some other topics connected with the government
of the church and the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. It can
scarcely be proved that, upon some of the points involved in what
has since been called the Erastian controversy, there was any
very explicit and harmonious testimony given by the Reformers
as a body ; and I certainly do not consider myself warranted in
saying, in regard to this matter, what might be said in regard to
the subjects of Presbyterian church government and popular
election, — namely, that the question as to what were the views of
the Reformers concerning it, is not one where there is room for
an honest difference of opinion.

The Reformers all strenuously asserted the lawfulness, the
advantages, and the divine institution of civil magistracy ; and
this general position may be confidently maintained concerning
them, that they usually assigned to the civil authorities, at least
all the powers and prerogatives, and imposed upon them at least
all the obligations, which can be shown to have any sanction from
the sacred Scriptures. They were led to give considerable pro-
minence to their general views on the subject of civil magistracy,
not only because the Church of Rome had depressed civil rulers
beneath their proper place, and deprived them of their rightful
and independent jurisdiction, but also because the Anabaptists
condemned all civil magistracy as unauthorized and unlawful
under the Christian dispensation, and denied that Christians
should either exercise or acknowledge it. These facts, too, fur-
nish the reasons why magistracy was commonly introduced as
the subject of a chapter or section in the confessions of the
Reformed churches, and why it has generally continued to form
a distinct head for discussion in the systems of theology.

Under the general head of the civil magistrate, or of civil
magistracy, — that is, in the exposition of what is taught in Scrip-
ture concerning the functions and duties of the supreme civil
authorities of a nation, whatever be its form of government, —
the Reformers were unanimous and decided in asserting what has
been called in modern times the principle of national establish-
ments of religion, — namely, that it is competent to, and incumbent
upon, nations, as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity,

560 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

or in the exercise of their legitimate control over civil matters, to
aim at the promotion of the honour of God, the welfare of true
religion, and the prosperity of the church of Christ. This prin-
ciple, which comprehends or implies the whole of what we are
concerned to maintain upon the subject of national establishments
of religion, we believe to be fully sanctioned by Scripture ; and
we can appeal, in support of it, to the decided and unanimous
testimony of the Reformers, — while the Anabaptists of that period
seem to have been the first, if we except the Donatists of the fifth
century, who stumbled upon something like the opposite doctrine,
or what is now-a-days commonly called the Voluntary principle.

The " Voluntary principle" is indeed a most inaccurate and
unsuitable designation of the doctrine to which it is now commonly
applied, and is fitted to insinuate a radically erroneous view of the
status qucBstionis in the controversy. The Voluntary principle
properly means the principle that an obligation lies upon men to
labour, in the willing application of their talents, influence, and
worldly substance, for the advancement of the cause of God and
the kingdom of Christ. Of course no defender of the principle
of national establishments of religion ever questioned the truth of
the Voluntary principle in this its only proper sense. The true
ground of difference is just this, — that we who hold the principle
of national establishments of religion extend this general obliga-
tion to nations and their rulers, while those who are opposed to us
limit it to individuals ; so that the Voluntary principle, in the only
sense in which we reject and oppose it — and in the only sense,
consequently, in which it forms a subject of fair and honourable
controversy — is a mere limitation of the sphere of this obligation
to promote the cause of God and the kindgom of Christ, — a mere
negation that the obligation in this respect which attaches to
individuals, extends also to nations and their rulers. We have no
intention, however, at present of discussing this question. We
have merely to advert to the unanimous and decided testimony of
the Reformers in support of the general doctrine, as a portion of
scriptural truth, — that the civil magistrate is bound, in the exer-
cise of his legitimate authority, of his riglitful jurisdiction ov€
national affairs, to seek to promote, as far as he can, the welfare
of true religion, and the prosperity of the church of Christ.

It has been often alleged, in order to neutralize the testimony
of the Reformers in support of this doctrine, that as they main-

Sec. I.] THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE AND RELIGION. 561

tained some great errors upon this general subject, and more
especially as they ascribed to civil rulers an authoritative control
in the affairs of the church, such as would now be called Eras-
tian, — and as they approved of intolerance and persecution upon
religious grounds, — their sentiments about the power and duty
of the civil magistrate in regard to religion are entitled to no
respect. As to the first of these allegations, we do not admit,
but deny, that the Reformers in general held Erastian principles,
or ascribed to civil rulers an authoritative control over the affairs
of the church ; though it is true, as we have admitted, that there
were some of them whose views upon this subject were not very
well defined, or very accurately brought out. As to the second
allegation, we admit that they held erroneous views upon the
subject of toleration, and ascribed to the civil magistrate a power
of punishing upon religious grounds, which is now universally
rejected by Protestants ; but we do not admit that their un-
doubted error upon this point deprives their general testimony, in
support of the scriptural duty of nations and their rulers, of all
weight or claim to respect.

There is an essential difference between the general duty or
obligation alleged to be incumbent upon nations and their rulers,
with reference to the promoting true religion and the welfare of
the church of Christ, and the specific measures which they may be
warranted and called upon to adopt in the discharge of this duty,
for the attainment of this end. The question as to what parti-
cular measures the civil magistrate may or should adopt in this
matter, and with a view to this object, is, comparatively speaking,
one of detail, or at least of inferior importance, and of greater
difficulty and intricacy. Men who concur in asserting the general
duty or obligation as a portion of scriptural truth, may differ
from each other about the measures which it may be lawful or in-
cumbent to adopt in discharging it. And errors in regard to the
particular way in which the duty ought to be discharged ought
not, in fairness, to prepossess men's minds against the general
truth that such a duty is binding. The first question is this: Does
an obligation to promote the welfare of true religion, and the pro-
sperity of the church of Christ, attach to nations, as such, and to
civil rulers as representing them, and as regulating their affairs ?
And if this question be settled in the affirmative, as we think it
ought to be, then we have next to consider, In what way or by

3 — VOL. IT. 2 N

562 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXVII.

what means ought the duty to be discharged ? Upon this second
question there is room for considerable difference of opinion, both
with respect to what may lawfully be done with that view, and
what is naturally fitted as a means to effect the end ; while it is
also plain that, in regard to some of the topics comprehended in
the general subject, the particular condition of the nation or com-
munity at the time may very materially affect or determine both
what it is practicable and what it is expedient to do in the matter.
There are, indeed, some general principles upon this subject,
which may be easily enough discovered and established from
Scripture, reason, and experience, and which are now generally
admitted ; and these both of a positive and of a negative kind, —
that is, setting forth both what civil rulers ought to do, and what
they ought not to do, in the discharge of this duty, and for the
attainment of this end. It is with the negative principle alone that
we have to do at present, in considering the value of the testimony
of the Reformers in support of the general obligation. And the
two most important of them certainly are these : First, that civil
rulers, in seeking to discharge their duty in regard to religion,
must not assume any jurisdiction or authoritative control over the
regulation of the affairs of the church of Christ ; and, secondly,
that they must not inflict upon men civil pains and penalties, —
fines, imprisonment, or death, — merely on account of differences
of opinion upon religious subjects. What is shut out by the first
of these principles, is what is commonly understood by Erastian-
ism ; and it is precluded or rendered unlawful by what is revealed
in Scripture concerning the character, constitution, and govern-
ment of the church of Christ, — concerning the principles, the
standard, and the parties by which its affairs ought to be regu-
lated. What is shut out by the second of these principles is in-
tolerance or persecution ; and it is precluded or rendered unlawful
by the want of any scriptural sanction for it, — by God's exclusive
lordship over the conscience, — and by the natural rights and
liberties which He has conf-erred upon men. These essential limi-
tations of the right of interference on the part of civil rulers in
religious matters seem to us very plain ; but they have not been
always seen and appreciated by those who have contended for the
scriptural duty of nations and their rulers. There is nothing,
indeed, in the maintenance of the general principle of the obliga-
tion of nations and their rulers, which, either by logical sequence

Sec. I.] THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE AND RELIGION. 563

or by natural tendency, leads men to advocate either Erastianism
or intolerance ; and it is unwarranted and unfair to attempt to
burden the general principle with the responsibility of rejecting
or excluding either of the two negative positions above laid down.
It is also true, however, that the first of them is still to this day
disregarded and trampled upon in every Protestant established
church in the world ; for there is not now one in which the state
has not sinfully usurped, and the church has not sinfully sub-
mitted to, Erastian domination. The second, which excludes as
unlawful all intolerance or persecution, has been always denied
and rejected by the Church of Rome ; and as the denial of it
seemed to have some countenance from Scripture, most of the
Reformers continued to retain, in a greater or less degree, the
sentiments upon this point in which the Church of Rome had
instructed them.

Practically, it is a worse thing — more injurious to the interests
of religion and the welfare of the community, and more offensive
to the feelings of Christian men — that civil rulers should Eras-
tianize the church, which they profess and design to favour, and
should persecute those who dissent from it, than that they should,
in fact, do nothing whatever in regard to religion, and with a
view to its promotion. But it does not follow from this, that
theoretically, as a matter of doctrine or speculation, it is a less
error — a smaller deviation from the standard of truth — to deny
altogether that any such duty is incumbent upon nations and their
rulers, than to maintain some erroneous notions as to the way in
which the duty ought to be discharged. We are firmly persuaded
that all Erastianism and all intolerance are precluded as unlawful,
— as sinfully interfering with the rights of the church and the
rights of conscience ; but still we are disposed to regard it as
being quite as obvious and certain a truth, that a general obliga-
tion to aim at the promotion of the welfare of true religion and
the prosperity of the church of Christ, attaches to nations and
their rulers, as that everything which might be comprehended
under the head of Erastianism or intolerance is precluded as un-
lawful. And it is very much upon this ground that we refuse
to admit that the error of the Reformers, in sanctioning to some
extent the Popish principle of intolerance and persecution, and
especially in pressing the right of civil rulers to inflict punishment
upon account of errors in religion beyond what the word of God

564 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

warrants or requires of them, is to be regarded as wholly neutra-
lizing the weight of their testimony — so far as human testimony
is entitled to any weight in a matter of this sort — in support of
the doctrine as to the obligations attaching to nations and their
rulers, with reference to true religion and the church of Christ.
The general subject of the principles by which civil rulers ought
to be guided, in the discharge of their duty with respect to reli-
gion, was not then carefully investigated. It was too commonly
assumed that, the general obligation being once established, any-
thing that had a prima facie appearance of possessing, or was at
the time usually supposed to possess, any tendency or fitness to
promote the end, might, and must, be tried in the performance of
the duty. Both those who defended Erastianisra and those who
defended persecution, were accustomed to act upon this assump-
tion, and to imagine that they had established their Erastian and
intolerant principles respectively, when they had really done
nothing more than establish the great general duty of the magis-
trate, without having proved the lawfulness or the obligation of
those particular modes of discharging it.

A striking illustration of this may be found in the writings
of Beza and Grotius, — two very eminent men. Beza wrote an
elaborate treatise in defence of intolerant and persecuting prin-
ciples, with special reference to the case of Servetus, entitled
" De Hsereticis a civili Magistratu puniendis." His leading object
in this work is to prove that heretics and blasphemers may be
lawfully put to death by the civil magistrate ; and that Servetus,
being a heretic and blasphemer, suffered only the merited punish-
ment of his crimes ; but all that he really does prove, so far as
the general question is concerned, is only this, — that civil magis-
trates are entitled and bound, in the exercise of their authority,
to aim at the promotion of the honour of God and the interests
of truth, and of course at the discouragement of blasphemy and
lieresy. He proves this, and he proves it conclusively ; in other
words, he proves the scriptural authority of the great general
principle from which the abstract lawfulness of national establish-
ments of religion may be deduced. But he proves nothing more
than this : he does not prove that, under the Christian dispensa-
tion, civil rulers are warranted, and much less bound, to inflict
the punishment of death upon heretics and blasphemers ; an^
neither does he prove that putting heretics and blasphemers

Sec. I.] THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE AND RELIGION. 565

death has any real tendency or fitness, in the long run, as a means
to discourage heresy and blasphemy.

Grotius, in like manner, wrote an elaborate treatise in defence
of principles which were thoroughly Erastian, entitled *' De
Imperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra." In order to accom-
plish this object, he just begins, as Beza had done, by establish-
ing the general principle of the obligation of civil rulers to aim
at the promotion of the welfare of religion and the prosperity of
the church, and then virtually assumes that this settled the whole
of the general question, leaving for subsequent investigation only
the extent to which civil rulers ought to interfere authoritatively
in the regulation and administration of the different departments
of the ordinary business of the church. He proves satisfactorily,
as Beza had done, the right and duty of civil rulers to aim at the
promotion of the welfare of true religion and the prosperity of
the church ; but in establishing this position, he adduces nothing
which really concludes in favour of the Erastian control over the
church, which he assumed to be involved in it. A power, indeed,
circa sacra — the expression which Grotius employed in the title
of his work — Presbyterian and anti-Erastian divines have usually
conceded to the civil magistrate ; and indeed this is necessarily in-
volved in the general principle to which we have so often referred,
and which implies that his obligation to aim at the promotion of
true religion entitles and requires him to employ his legitimate
authority, or rightful jurisdiction, in civil things with a view to
the advancement of the interests of religion. But a mere power
circa sacra affords no sufficient warrant for the Erastian domina-
tion over the church, which it was the great object of Grotius's
book to establish. Erastianism is a power not merely circa sacra,
but in sacris, — a right to exercise proper jurisdiction or authori-
tative control in the actual regulation of ecclesiastical affairs,
in the administration of the ordinary necessary business of the
church, as an organized society ; and this power is not only not
involved in, or deducible from, the general principle of the duty
of civil rulers to aim at the welfare of the church, but is precluded
by all that Scripture makes known to us concerning the church,
its relation to Christ and to His word, and the whole provision
which He has made for its government.

These cases illustrate the distinction that ought to be made
between the general principle that an obligation attaches to nations

56Q THE EKASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

and their rulers, to aim at the promotion of true religion and the
prosperity of the church of Christ, and the adoption of any par-
ticular theory as to the means which may, or should, be employed
for that purpose. All this tends to show that it is unwarrantable
to burden the general principle with the particular applications
that have often been made of it ; while it also tends to afford a
very strong presumption in favour of the clearness and cer-
tainty of the grounds, derived both from Scripture and reason,
on which the general principle itself can be established.

It is right to mention, before leaving this branch of the
subject, that the Reformers in general did not retain the whole
of the intolerant and persecuting principles which they had been
taught by the Church of Rome. They saw and acknowledged
the unlawfulness and absurdity of the Popish principle of employ-
ing force or persecution for the purpose of leading men to make
an outward profession of the truth. And, accordingly, they never
gave any countenance to those wholesale persecutions which form
so characteristic a feature of the great apostasy. The principal
error on the subject of the magistrate's power with respect to
religion which retained a hold of the minds of the generality of
the Reformers, and perverted their sentiments and their conduct
upon this whole subject, was the notion of the right and duty of
civil rulers to punish men, and even to inflict the punishment of
death, on account of heresy and blasphemy. They admitted the
general principle of the right of civil rulers to inflict pains and
penalties on account of heresy and blasphemy, though they would
have restricted the punishment of death to those who were doing
extensive injury in leading others into the commission of these
sins. Now this was a notion which, though it had no solid foun-
dation to rest upon, and was both erroneous and dangerous, was
not altogether destitute of something like plausible countenance
in some scriptural statements, and especially in a natural enough
misapplication of some considerations derived from the judicial
law of Moses. The subject, indeed, is not free from difficulties ;
and it is not to be wondered at, that the notion above stated
should have retained some hold of the minds of the Reformers.
The question continued to perplex the minds of theologians for
several generations ; and it cannot be denied that, during nearly
the whole even of the seventeenth century, Protestant divines in
general ascribed, in speculation at least, to civil rulers, a power of

Skc. I.] THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE AND RELIGION. 567

inflicting punishment on account of heresy, which is now univer-
sally rejected, except by the adherents of the Church of Rome.

Luther seems to have become convinced that in his earlier
writings he had spoken too loosely and too widely of the right
of civil rulers to interfere in the regulation of the aifairs of the
church ; though it ought to be mentioned, to his honour, that
from the first he restricted their right to inflict punishment, on
account of heresy or serious religious error, within narrower limits
than almost any one of the Reformers. It may be worth while
here to refer to two remarkable passages from Luther's later
works, in the first of which he denies to civil rulers all right of
authoritative interference or control in the regulation of the
affairs of the church, and does so in language resembling, both
in its substance and meaning, and in its tone and spirit, what
our forefathers were accustomed to employ when contending, in
opposition to the usurpations of the civil powers, for Christ's sole
right to reign in His own kingdom, and to rule in His own house ;
and in the second of which he expressed his strong apprehension
of the grievous injury which was likely to accrue to the Protestant
Church from the Erastian control which civil rulers were claiming
and usurping over the regulation of its affairs, in return for the
protection and assistance which they rendered to it. In a paper
addressed to Melancthon, and published in his Consilia, Luther,
after denying the right of bishops to exercise domination over the
church, proceeds to say : " Episcopus, ut Princeps, multo minus
potest supra Ecclesiam imponere quidquam; quia hoc esset prorsus
confundere has duas Potestates, . . . et nos si admitteremus, tam
essemus paris sacrilegii rei. Hie potius est moriendum, quam
banc impietatem et iniquitatem committere. Loquor de ecclesia,
ut Ecclesia, distincta jam a civitate politica."* The other passage
is too long to quote, but it very emphatically expresses Luther's
deep apprehensions of great injury to religion from the growing
interference of civil rulers in the affairs of the church. It can
be easily proved that Melancthon fully shared in Luther's appre-
hensions of mischief and danger from this quarter. And indeed
there are plain enough indications that the apprehensions which
Melancthon entertained of injury to the Protestant Church, and
to the interests of true religion, from the interference of the civil

* Voetii Polit. Eccks. P. i. lib. i. Tract, ii. c. iii. torn. i. p. 174.

568 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

authorities in the regulation of its affairs, was one of the con-
siderations which weighed heavily upon his mind, and had som<
influence in producing that strong desire of an adjustment withl
the Church of Eome, and that tendency to the compromise ofci
truth, or something like it, which formed so prominent a feature!
in his history. And we think it abundantly manifest, from a sur-
vey of the history of Protestantism for a period of three hundred
years, that these apprehensions of Luther and Melancthon about
the injurious tendency and effect of the authoritative interference
of civil rulers in the regulation of the affairs of the church have
been fully realized. The civil authorities, in most Protestant
countries, aimed at, and succeeded in, getting very much the same
control over the church which they professed to favour and assist,
as the Pope had claimed and exercised over the church at large ;
and this has proved, in many ways, most injurious to the interests
of true religion. Of all Protestant countries, England is the
one where this claim of civil supremacy over the church was
most openly put forth, most fully conceded, and most injuriously
exercised; while our own beloved land — Scotland — is that in
which it has all along been most strenuously and successfully
resisted. Indeed, it was only in the year 1843 that the civil
power fully succeeded in acquiring an Erastian control over the
Presbyterian Establishment of Scotland, and reducing it to the
same state of sinful subjection to which all other Protestant
ecclesiastical establishments had long before bowed their necks.

Calvin, though he did not rise above the prevailing sentiments
of his age in regard to the civil magistrate's right to punish heresy,
manifested his usual comprehensive soundness and penetrating
judgment in grasping firmly and accurately the true scriptural
principle that ought to regulate the relation of the civil and the
ecclesiastical authorities, so far as concerns the ordinary admini-
stration of the church's affairs, in opposition to all Erastian en-
croachments of the civil power. Mosheim's account of Calvin's
sentiments upon this subject is undoubtedly correct, though, as
we have had occasion to explain, he gives an erroneous repre-
sentation of those of Zwingle. His words are worth quoting in the
original, because they are more precise and definite than Murdock's,
and much more than Maclaine's translation of them. Mosheim
says : " Calvinus magistratum in res religionis potestatem angustis
circumscribebat finibus, atque ecclesiam sui juris" (spiritual in-

Sec. II.] ERASTUS AND THE EEASTIANS. 569

dependence) "esse, seque ipsam per collegia Presbyterorum et
Synodos seu conventus Presbyterorum, veteris ecclesise more,
regere" (self-government) "debere adseverabat, tutela tamen et
externa cura ecclesige magistratui relicta."* The sentiments here
ascribed, and justly ascribed, to Calvin, embody, with accuracy
and precision, the sum and substance of all that has been usually
contended for by Presbyterians, in opposition to Erastian claims
and pretensions; and though Calvin was not called in providence to
develope fully, and to apply in all their details, the principles which
he professed upon this subject, yet the principles themselves, as he
has stated them, and the practical applications which he did make
of them to some questions of church discipline controverted be-
tween the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities of Geneva, estab-
lish, beyond all reasonable doubt, what side he would have taken
in those subsequent speculations and practical proceedings, which
may be said to constitute what is called the Erastian controversy.

Sec. 2. — Erastus and the Erastians.

Thomas Erastus, who has given his name to this controversy,
did not publish his sentiments till after the first generation of
Reformers had been removed to their rest. He was a physician
at Heidelberg, then the capital of the dominions of the Elector
Palatine, and the head-quarters of Calvinism, as distinguished from
Lutheranism, among the German churches ; and seems to have
been held in high estimation on account of his talents, acquire-
ments, and general character. In 1568, an attempt was made to
introduce into the churches of the Palatinate a more rigorous
discipline with respect to the admission of men to the sacraments,
— a subject which in that, and in one or two other Reformed
churches, had hitherto been very much neglected. Erastus set
himself to oppose this attempt at the reformation or purification
of the church, and prepared, upon the occasion, a hundred theses
or propositions, — afterwards reduced to seventy-five, — directed to
the object of showing that Scripture did not sanction the claim of
the church, as a society, or of its office-bearers, to excommunicate
or exclude from the sacraments, on account of immoral conduct,

* Moshemii Institut. Ssec. xvi. sec. 1 lib. iv. c. xi. sec. 16. Revii Ezamen.
iii. P. ii. c. ii. § 12. Calvin, Instit. \ p. 21.

570

THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

men who made a profession of Christianity, and desired admission
to the ordinances. These theses were not published, but were sent
in manuscript to Beza, as the most influential man in the Reformed
church after the death of Calvin. Beza wrote a full and able
reply to them, and sent it to Erastus, who soon after, in 1570,
drew up a very full and elaborate answer to Beza, in six books,
which he called Thesium Confirmatio. Bullinger and Gualther,
at that time the leading divines of Zurich, — the former the im-
mediate successor, and the latter the son-in-law, of Zwingle, —
were to some extent favourable to Erastus's view in regard to
discipline and excommunication. They strenuously exerted them-
selves to prevent a public controversy upon the subject, and they
succeeded in prevailing upon both parties to abstain from publish-
ing their works. Thus matters remained until after Erastus's
death, when, in 1589, his widow, who had removed to England,
where such a project was sure to gain countenance, published at
London, at the instigation and under the patronage of Archbishop
Whitgift, both the Theses and the Confirmation of them, with
some recommendatory letters of Bullinger and Gualther subjoined
to them, and with fictitious names assigned both to the place of
publication and the printer. When this work reached Beza, he
at once published, in 1590, his original answer to Erastus's theses,
under the title of Tractatus plus et moderatus de Vera Excom-
municatione et Christiano Preshyterio, with a very interesting pre-
face, in which he gave some account of the history of this matter,
— animadverted upon the sentiments of Bullinger and Gualther,
— and declared his intention, though he was now seventy years' of
age, of preparing and publishing a full answer to the Confirma-
tion,— an intention, however, which he did not carry into effect.

The works both of Erastus and Beza are chiefly occupied with
a discussion of the subject of excommunication, — that is, with the
investigation of the question, whether Scripture warrants and
sanctions the exercise, by courts of ecclesiastical office-bearers, of
the power of excluding from the participation of the sacraments
professing Christians who are guilty of immorality, — Beza affirm-
ing this, and Erastus denying it, and arguing elaborately and
ingeniously in support of his position, though obliged, from its
intrinsic absurdity and palpable falsehood, to perpetrate some very
considerable inconsistencies, as is explained in the first chapter of
the second book of Gillespie's AarorHs Rod Blossoming, where

Sec. II.] ERASTUS AND THE ERASTIANS. 571

there is a very interesting history of the origin and growth of
Erastianism. Erastus's name, however, could not probably have
been generally employed to designate a controversy which for
more than two centuries has been commonly regarded and spoken
of among Protestants as comprehending a discussion of the whole
subject of the relation that ought to subsist between the civil and
the ecclesiastical authorities, if he had confined himself rigidly
to the one topic of excommunication, and to the examination of
the scriptural grounds on which the right of excommunication is
alleged to rest. And accordingly we find that, in the preface, and
in the conclusion to his Theses, and still more fully in the first
chapter of the third book of the Confirmation, he has distinctly
entered upon the wider field above described, as embraced by the
controversy which has since been called after his name. He has
there explicitly ascribed to the civil magistrate a general jurisdic-
tion, or right of authoritative control, in the regulation of the affairs
of the church, and has denied that Christ has appointed a distinct
government in the church for the administration of its ordinary
necessary business ; and these are the points on which the whole
of what is usually understood to be comprehended in the Erastian
controversy, and the whole subject of the authority of civil rulers
in regard to religion and the church of Christ, really turn.
Erastus has not only ascribed to the civil magistrate jurisdiction
or authoritative control in ecclesiastical matters, and denied the
appointment by Christ of a distinct government in the church ;
but he has indicated some of the leading arguments by which
these views have ever since been, and continue to this day to be,
defended. He has distinctly declared his concurrence * in the
general principle which both Papists and Erastians have always
been accustomed to adduce in support of their opposite views upon
this subject, — namely, the absurdity of what they call an imperium
in imperio, or, what is virtually the same thing, the necessity of
there being one power and government which has supreme and
ultimate jurisdiction over all matters, both civil and ecclesiastical,
— Papists, of course, vesting this supremacy in the church, or in
the Pope, as representing it ; and Erastus, and all who have since
been called after his name, vesting it in the civil magistrate. It
is thus manifest, that though Erastus's book is chiefly occupied

* Pp. 159-161.

572 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

with the subject of excommunication, he really laid the foundation
among Protestants of what is usually called the Erastian contro-
versy, and indicated the leading grounds which have commonly
been taken by those who have since held what Presbyterian
divines have always been accustomed to designate Erastian views,
on the whole subject of the relation that ought to subsist between
the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities.

Erastus admits, indeed, that the civil magistrate, in admini-
stering ecclesiastical affairs, is bound to take the word of God as
his only rule and standard ; and in this he is less Erastian than
some who, in modern times, have been ranked under that desig-
nation,— not, perhaps, without some injustice to him, but most
certainly without any injustice to them, — inasmuch as the persons
to whom we refer have asserted principles, and pursued a course
of conduct, which led, by necessary logical sequence, to the con-
clusion that the law of the land, as such, — that is, irrespective of
its accordance with the loordof God^ — is aright and proper standard
for regulating the affairs of the church. But while Erastus admits
that the word of God is the only rule by which the affairs of the
church ought to be regulated, he denies to ecclesiastical office-
bearers the right of judging authoritatively as to the application
of scriptural statements to the decision of the questions which
must arise occasionally wherever a church exists, and makes the
civil magistrate the supreme and ultimate judge of all those ques-
tions connected with the administration of the affairs of the
church, which require to be judicially or forensically determined.

There is one important point on which Erastus deviated fur-
ther from the opinions commonly entertained than most of those
who have been usually called after his name. Most of those who
have been described — and, upon the grounds already explained,
justly described — by Presbyterian divines as Erastians, have ad-
mitted a distinction of functions, though not of government, in
relation to civil and ecclesiastical affairs ; in other words, while
they have in general contended, more or less openly and expli-
citly, that all judicial or forensic questions about the admission
of men to office and ordinances must be ultimately, and in the
last resort, decided by the civil magistrate, — thus denying a dis-
tinct government in the church, — they have usually conceded
that ecclesiastical office-bearers alone can legitimately administer
these ordinances, — thus admitting a distinction of function be-

Sec. II.] ERASTUS AND THE ERASTIANS. 573

tween magistrates and ministers. Even the Church of England
expressly excludes the civil magistrate from a right to administer
the word and sacraments. But Erastus has plainly enough in-
dicated his opinion that the civil magistrate might warrantably
and legitimately administer these ordinances himself, if his other
duties allowed him leisure for the work : * " Quod addis, non
licere Magistratui, re ita postulante, docere et Sacramenta ad-
ministrare (si modo per negotia possit utrique muneri sufficere),
id verum non est. Nusquam enim Deus vetuit."

As Erastus has plainly asserted all the views which we have
ascribed to him, so Beza has opposed and refuted them all, except,
of course, the position which, as we have seen, Erastus conceded,
— namely, that the word of God is the only rule or standard by
which the affairs of the church ought to be regulated ; and in the
opposition which he made to them, he had the decided and cordial
concurrence of the generality of the Reformed divines, and of all
sound Presbyterian theologians in every age.

Erastians, in modern times, have sometimes appealed to the
Reformers in support of their opinions, and have professed to
derive some support from that quarter ; and I have admitted that
the testimony of the Reformers is not so full, explicit, and conclu-
sive, as upon the subject of Presbyterian church government, and
the popular election of ecclesiastical office-bearers, — and explained
the reason of this. Still it can be shown — and I think I have pro-
duced sufficient materials to establish the conclusion — that the testi-
mony of the Reformers in general is not for, but against, Erastian
views of the powers and rights of civil magistrates in the administra-
tion of ecclesiastical affairs. We may briefly advert to some of the
principal grounds on which Erastians have claimed the testimony
of the Reformers, or some of them, in favour of their opinions.

First, they appeal to some rather strong and incautious state-
ments of Luther and Zwingle, in instigating and encouraging —
the one the Elector of Saxony, and the other the magistrates of
Zurich — to zeal and activity in exercising their power to overturn
the Popish system, and promote the cause of the Reformation.
We admit that some of the statements referred to, indicate to
some extent a want of clear and accurate conceptions of the line
of demarcation between the provinces of the civil and the eccle-

* P. 265.

574

THE ERASTIAN CONTEOVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

siastical authorities; but we have already said enough to show
that this fact is not one of much importance or relevancy, and to
prove that Erastians have no right to appeal to the mature and
deliberate testimony of Luther and Zwingle.

Of a similar kind, though of still less real value, is the refer-
ence sometimes made to certain statements made by our own Re-
former, John Knox, especially in his Appellation or appeal to the
nobility of Scotland against the sentence of death pronounced
upon him by the ecclesiastical authorities. There is really nothing
so objectionable or inaccurate in any statement they have been
able to produce from Knox, as in some of those made by Luther
and Zwingle. Knox had the benefit of the light thrown upon
this subject by the comprehensive and sagacious mind of Calvin ;
and he has not been betrayed into any statement distinctively
Erastian, — any statement implying a denial of a distinct govern-
ment in the church, or an ascription to civil rulers of jurisdiction
in ecclesiastical affairs. His appeal, primarily and directly, re-
spected a matter which was in its own nsitnre pureli/ civil, and lay
within the province of the magistrate, — namely, a sentence of
death which had been pronounced upon him by the ecclesiastical
authorities ; and in calling upon the civil powers to reverse this
sentence, and to preserve him from its consequence, he did not
need to ascribe, and he has not ascribed, to them any jurisdiction
over the affairs of the church. His more general exhortations to
them to exercise their power in opposition to the Papacy, and
for the promotion of Protestant truth, are all resolvable into the
general principle as to the duty of nations and their rulers, which
we have already explained and illustrated, — a principle held by
all the Eeformers. In short, no statements have been produced
from Knox which favour Erastianism ; and in the views laid
down in the first Scotch Confession, which he prepared, upon
the subject of the church, its constitution, and the principles on
which its government ought to be conducted, there is enough to
exclude everything which could be justly comprehended under
that designation, — everything which subsequent Presbyterian
divines would have refused or hesitated to adopt.

Secondly, Another consideration usually founded on by modern
Erastians, is the measure of countenance and approbation which
Bullinger and Gualther gave to the writings of Erastus. Their
approbation, however, seems to have been extended only to what

Sec. II.] ERASTUS AND THE ERASTIANS. 575

was the direct and primary subject of Erastus's Theses, — namely,
excoqamunication, — without including his peculiar opinions about
the powers of the civil magistrate generally. And even in regard
to the subject of excommunication, Beza has shown, in the pre-
face to his answer to Erastus, by extracts which he produces from
their writings, that they were very far from concurring in all his
views upon this point ; and, especially, that they did not adopt
his interpretation of those passages of Scripture which bear upon
the subject of excommunication.*

The only other topic adduced by modern Erastians, in order
to procure some countenance for their views from the Reformers,
is the fact that two or three other divines of that period, in addi-
tion to Bullinger and Gualther, — though not any one of the first
rank, or of great name and authority, — gave some sanction to
this notion, that when there was no Christian magistrate in the
church, ecclesiastical office-bearers should themselves exercise all
the functions of discipline, including excommunication ; hut that
when there was a Christian magistrate exercising his authority
in protecting and assisting the church, the exercise of discipline
should be left to him, and should not be assumed by ecclesiastical
office-bearers. We admit that this was an unreasonable and ill-
founded notion, and that the men who held it entertained defec-
tive and inaccurate views in regard to the rights and functions of
the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities. But it did not prevail
among the divines of that period to such an extent — viewed either
with reference to their number or their standing — as to affect the
import of the testimony of the Reformers as a body. It is a
notion which has been often since mooted, more or less explicitly,
by Erastian writers, who, in their want of argument, seem to
think that this pretence may be conveniently employed for the
purpose of palliating, if not justifying, some degree of authorita-
tive civil interference in ecclesiastical affairs. It is at bottom
very similar to the distinction that has been sometimes set up in
our own day, — though its authors have never ventured to make
any very distinct or explicit application of it, — between a church
of Christ, absolutely considered, and an established church.

But the falsehood of the distinction, and of everything ap-

* Vide De Moor, Comment, in Marck. Compend. c. xxxiii. § xxi. torn,
vi. p. 400.

576 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

proaching to it or resembling it, and its utter inadequacy to afford
any countenance to any authoritative interference of civil rulers
in ecclesiastical affairs, have been, centuries ago, demonstrated by
Presbyterian writers, by establishing the two following positions :
First, that the civil magistrate does not, by becoming a Christian
and a member of the church, — by taking the church under his
protection, and exerting his authority and influence for promoting
its prosperity, — by conferring upon it any temporal favours or
privileges, — acquire any new right or power in addition to what
is competent to him simply as a magistrate, and, more especially,
that he does not thereby acquire any right to assume any ecclesi-
astical function or jurisdiction, or to interfere authoritatively in
the regulation of any ecclesiastical matters ; and, secondly, that
the church and its office-bearers not only are not bound, but are
not at liberty, to delegate or concede, for any reason or in any
circumstances, to any party, the discharge of any of the duties
which Christ has imposed upon them, — the execution of any of
the functions which He has bestowed upon them, — but are bound
at all times, in all circumstances, and at all hazards, to do them-
selves the whole necessary business of Christ's house, on their
own responsibility, subject to Him alone, and according to the
standard of His word. These positions can be conclusively
established, — they go to the root of the matter, — they overturn
from the foundation all Erastian encroachments upon the rights
and liberties of the church of Christ, and all the pretences by
which they have been, or can be, defended, — they fully vindicate
the struggles and contendings of our forefathers against the in-
terference of the civil authorities in ecclesiastical matters, — they
fully warrant the proceedings on the part of those who now con-
stitute the Free Church of Scotland, which led to the Disrup-
tion of the ecclesiastical establishment of this country, — and they
establish not only the warrantableness, but the obligation and the
necessity, of those steps by which we have been brought, under
God's guidance, into the position we now occupy.

Sec. 3. — Erastianism during the Seventeenth Century.

To the Erastian controversy I have already had occasion to
advert in our earlier discussions. I have had to notice the con-
troversy between the emperors and the popes of the middle ages.

Sec. III.] ERASTIANISM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 577

about the respective provinces and functions of the civil and the
ecclesiastical authorities, or, as it was then commonly called, the
contest inter imperium et sacerdotium ; and I took the opportunity
then of explaining fully the distinction between the Popish doc-
trine upon this subject, and that held by the Presbyterians, which
is often — from ignorance or somethina; worse — confounded with
it ; while, in connection with the sixteenth century, I had to give
some account of the views of Erastus himself, who has had the
honour of giving his name to this controversy, and of the contro-
versy in England during Elizabeth's reign.

The seventeenth century, however, was the principal era of
this important controversy about the principles that ought to re-
gulate the relation between the civil and the ecclesiastical autho-
rities, and to determine their respective provinces and functions, —
the era at which the real merits of the whole subject, and of all
the topics involved in it, were most fully developed, and the most
important works on both sides were composed. The subject has
been revived in our own day ; and it is now possessed of at least
ias much practical importance as ever it had, and must always
be peculiarly interesting to every one connected with the Free
Church of Scotland. I shall only mention the principal occasions
when this subject gave rise to controversial discussion, and the
most important works which these different branches of the con-
troversy produced.

The earliest discussions upon this subject, in the seventeenth
century, were connected with the rise and progress of the Armi-
nian controversy in Holland, and arose out of the interference of
the civil authorities in the theological disputes which the views of
Arminius and his followers produced, — so much so, that it has
been said that this might be regarded as a sixth point or article in
the Arminian controversy. The Arminians generally adopted
Erastian views, — that is, of course, they ascribed a larger measure
of jurisdiction or authority to the civil magistrate in religious and
ecclesiastical matters, than Calvinists and Presbyterians generally
have thought warranted by the word of God. The cause of this
was partly, no doubt, because they found that, during the earlier
stages of the controversy, previous to the calling of the Synod of
Dort, the civil authorities generally favoured them, and were dis-
posed to promote their views ; while the ecclesiastical authorities
— the church courts — decidedly opposed their innovations. But

3 — VOL. II. 2 O

578 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII,

their leaning to Erastianism had a deeper foundation than this,
in the general character and tendency of their doctrinal views, —
especially in their latitudinarianism, which implied or produced
a want of an adequate sense of responsibility connected with the
discovery and the maintenance of all God's truth ; and thus tended
to dispose them towards an allowance or toleration of the inter-
ference of a foreign and incompetent authority in the decision of
religious controversies, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs.
In 1614, the States of Holland, under Armiuian influence,
issued a decree imposing great limitations, amounting virtually to
a prohibition, upon the public discussion of the controverted points,
— very similar, indeed, both in its substance and in its object, to
the declaration afterwards issued by royal authority, in England,
under Laud's influence. The orthodox divines — especially Sib-
randus Lubbertus, professor at Franeker — attacked this decree,
at once as requiring what was sinful in itself, that is, a neglect
or violation of a duty which God had imposed, — and as involving
a sinful assumption of authority on the part of the civil powers.
Grotius defended this decree, and the principles on which it
was based, in several pieces contained in the sixth volume of
his theological works ; the principal of which, entitled Ordinum
Hollandice ac Westfrisice Fietas, contains a good specimen of the
combination of Erastianism with the most latitudinarian views in
regard to doctrine. He wrote, about the same time, his famous
treatise, De Imperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra, which I
have had occasion to mention, — an elaborate defence of a system
of the grossest Erastianism, such as some even of his Prelatic
correspondents in England could not digest. This work was not
published till 1647, two years after its author's death. Another
branch of the same controversy originated in a work of Uten-
bogard, minister at the Hague, a very zealous and influential
supporter of Arminianism, published in Dutch in 1610, on the
authority of the Christian magistrate in ecclesiastical matters.
This was answered, in 1615, by Walaeus, afterwards professor
of theology at Leyden, in a very valuable treatise, entitled De
munere Ministrorum Ecclesice, et Inspectione Magisiratus circa
illud, contained in the second volume of his collected works,
which also include some important treatises on the Arminian con-
troversy, especially in defence of iMolinajus's Ajiatoine Arminian-
ismi against Corvinus. Utenbogard's treatise was defended, and

Sec. hi.] ERASTIANISM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 579

Walgeus's answered, by two men of very superior talents and
learning — Gerhard John Vossius and Episcopius. Yossius was
a man of great learning, and leaned very much to Arminianism,
though he did not fully embrace the whole of that system of
theology. His answer to Walseus was written in 1616, in the
form of a letter to Grotius ; and it is contained in a very curious
and interesting work, entitled Prcestantium ac Eruditorum Vir-
orum Epistolce Ecclesiasticce et Tkeologicoe^ — a work published
by Limborch, and designed to advance the cause of Arminianism.
It was also published separately in a small quarto, in 1669, under
the title of Dissertatio Epistolica de jure Magistratus in rebus
Ecclesiasticis. Episcopius's defence of Utenbogard was published
in 1618, entitled De jure Magistratus circa Sacra, and is con-
tained in the second volume of his works. The controversy upon
this subject between the Calvinists and the Arminians continued,
without any material change of ground, after the Synod of Dort,
in 1618-19; and there is some discussion of it, on the one side,
in the Censura of the Leyden divines, on the Confession of the
Remonstrants ; and, on the other, in Episcopius's Apologia pro
Confessione, in reply to the Censura.

A somewhat different aspect was given to the controversy, by
the publication, in 1641, of a small work by Vedelius, entitled
De Episcopatu Constantini Magni. Vedelius was a Calvinist, pro-
fessor of theology at Franeker, and had written a valuable book,
which was very galling to the Arminians, entitled De Arcanis
Arminianismi^ and was answered by Episcopius. He professed to
reject the doctrine of the Arminians in regard to the jurisdiction of
the civil magistrate with respect to religious matters, and to assign
to him much less authority — a much more limited right of inter-
ference— than they had done ; but his views did not satisfy the
generality of orthodox divines, who still thought them somewhat
Erastian, and maintained that, in opposing Popish errors, he had
gone too far to the other extreme, and had ascribed to the civil
power too much authority in religious matters. From the very
modified views held by Vedelius upon this subject, his opponents,
in answering him, were led to deal more closely than had ever been
done before, with the real intricacies and difficulties of the ques-
tion, and with the minuter distinctions which are necessary for the
more full development and the more exact elucidation of the dif-
ferent topics which it involves ; and their works, in consequence,

580 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

have usually been regarded by sound Presbyterian divines, as
exhibiting the most complete and accurate view of the principles
involved in what has been commonly called the Erastian contro-
versy. The principal answers to Vedelius's work were these three,
— all of them valuable works, and well worthy of being perused by
those who wish to understand this question thoroughly, — Revius's
Examen Dissertationis Vedelii; Triglandius's Dissertatio Theologica
de Civili et Ecclesiastica Potestate ; and Apollonius's Jus Majes-
tatis circa Sacra, — all published immediately after Vedelius's work,
and just about the time of the meeting of the Westminster
Assembly. Voetius also, professor of divinity for many years at
Utrecht, — a man of prodigious learning, — was a zealous oppo-
nent of Erastianism, and wrote largely upon this subject at diffe-
rent periods of his life, and in opposition to different opponents,
especially in the first and last parts of his great work, PoUtica
Ecclesiastica, — the first published in 1663, and the last in 1676.
His principal antagonist upon this subject was Lewis du Moulin,
or Ludovicus Molinasus, a son of the famous Molinseus, who took
so active a part in the Arminian controversy, and was long the
leading divine in the Protestant Church of France. Lewis settled
in England, and obtained a chair in Oxford during the Common-
wealth. He adopted Independent, or Congregational, views on
church government, chiefly, it would appear, because he thought
them more favourable to Erastianism than Presbyterian prin-
ciples,— a notion for which he could plead the authority of Con-
gregational divines of the highest eminence, — namely, the five
dissenting brethren, as they were called, in the Westminster
Assembly. They, in their Apologetical Narration, had asserted
that they gave as much, or, as they thought, more, power to the
civil magistrate in religious matters than the principles of Pres-
byterians would allow them to do, — a declaration which, whether
it be regarded as made honestly or hypocritically, has been very
galling to those who have succeeded them in the maintenance
of Congregational principles. Du Moulin wrote at least four
books in defence of Erastianism, — one in English, entitled Of the
Right of Churches, and of the Magistrates Power over them ; and
three in Latin, the first and most important entitled Parcenesis
ad aidijicatores imperii in imperio, — the allegation, that scriptural
and Presbyterian views about the independence of the Church
of Christ establish an imperium in imperio, having been always,

Sec. III.] ERASTIANISM TN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 581

as I have explained, the favourite argument of Erastians ; and
the other two entitled Jugulum causcB and Papa Ultrajectinus, —
the pope of Utrecht being Yoetius, and the title being intended
to insinuate, as is often done still, that the principles of Presby-
terians upon this subject are the same as those of the Church of
Home.

I have gone on to notice Voetius and his antagonist Du
Moulin, that I might finish what I had to say about this con-
troversy, as it had been conducted in Holland during the seven-
teenth century. I now turn to Great Britain, where the Erastian
controversy broke out at the time of the Westminster Assembly.
A very excellent account of the controversy, as then conducted,
will be found in the fourth chapter of Dr. Hetherington's very
valuable History of the Westminster Assembly. I can only men-
tion, that the two principal works produced at this period in
defence of Presbyterian, and in opposition to Erastian, prin-
ciples, are Gillespie's Aaron^s Rod Blossoming, and Rutherford's
Divine Right of Church Govern7nent, both published in 1646, —
Gillespie's work being much more luminous, and much better
digested, than Rutherford's; and the second book of it being
perhaps, upon the whole, the best work to be read, in order to
obtain a comprehensive view of the principles of the Erastian
controversy. The chief Erastian book of this period is Selden,
De Synedriis, which is directed to the object of assailing Pres-
byterian principles with materials derived from the Old Testa-
ment and the Jewish polity, — materials which are discussed in
the first book of Gillespie's Aaron^s Rod Blossoming.

There was little discussion upon this subject in England after
the Restoration. The controversy was then transferred to Scot-
land, where the Presbyterian Nonconformists, in defending their
refusal to submit to the ecclesiastical establishment then imposed
upon the nation, not only objected to the intrinsic unlawfulness
of the things imposed, but to the sinful usurpation of the rights
of Christ, and of His church, exhibited by the civil authorities
in imposing them, and were thus led to expound the principles
by which the interference of the civil authorities, in regard to
religious matters, ought to be regulated. The principal works
in which their views upon this subject were set forth are — Brown
of Wamphray's Apologeticall Relation, published in 1665 ; the
Apology for the Oppressed^ Persecuted Ministers and Professors of

582 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY. [Chap. XXVII.

the Presbyterian Reformed Religion, in 1677 ; and Forrester's
Rectius Tnstruendum, etc., in 1684. There has not, from that
period till our own day, been much discussion upon this subject
in Scotland. Brown of Wamphray, while in exile in Holland,
published, in 1670, an important and valuable work on this sub-
ject, entitled Lihertino-Erasiiance Lamherti Velthusii Sententice, de
Ministerio, Regimine, et Dlsciplind Ecclesiasticd Confutatio, wdiich
is well worthy of perusal.

These are the chief eras or occasions of the discussion of the
Erastian controversy, or of the principles that ought to regulate
the provinces, functions, and duties of the civil and the ecclesi-
astical authorities, and of their relation to each other ; and these
are the principal books from which a knowledge of these subjects,
and of the way in which they have been discussed, ought to be
derived. There are several other interesting departments of the
controversy, a knowledge of which tends to throw some light
upon it, but to which I can merely allude : such as, first, the
controversy in France during the seventeenth century, on the
subject of the Galilean Liberties, in which Richer, Fleury,
Dupin, and Bossuet, being preserved by their Popery from the
opposite extreme of Erastianism, but being occupied in establish-
ing the entire independence of the civil upon the ecclesiastical,
that they might refute the Pope's claims to temporal jurisdic-
tion, direct or indirect, arrived at the same general conclusions as
Presbyterians — though they advanced to them from an opposite
direction — as to the proper relation between the civil and the
ecclesiastical ; secondly, the discussions carried on in England
after the Revolution by the Nonjurors, especially Leslie, Hickes,
Dodwell, and Brett, in which, though greatly hampered by their
admission of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown, as set
forth in the Articles and Canons of the Church of England, they
made a fair approach to scriptural and Presbyterian principles
about the independence of the church of Christ, — advocating
views similar to those put forth in our own day upon this subject
by the Tractarians ; and, lastly, the thoroughly Erastian views
advocated in the end of the seventeenth century, and the early
part of the eighteenth, upon philosophical, political, and historical
grounds, by some eminent German lawyers and jurists, who were
profoundly skilled in ecclesiastical history, especially Thomasius,
Boehmer, and Puffendorf.

Sec. IV.] FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 583

Sec. 4. — Free Church of Scotland.

This controversy has been revived in onr own day, and in its
practical consequences proved the immediate cause of the Dis-
ruption of the ecclesiastical establishment of this country, and
of the formation of the Free Church of Scotland. The precise
cause or ground of the Disruption was this, — that the civil
authorities required of us to do, in the execution of our functions
as ecclesiastical office-bearers, or in the administration of the
ordinary necessary business of Christ's church, what was incon-
sistent with the word of God and the recognised constitution of
the church ; and that we refused to do what was thus required
of us, — first, because the things required to be done were in
themselves wrong, sinful, opposed to the mind and will of God
as revealed in His word, and to the interests of true religion ;
and, secondly, because to have done them on the ground on
which obedience was required of us, — namely, submission to the
alleged law of the land, — would have been an- aggravation,
instead of a palliation, of the sin, as it would have involved, in
addition, a sinful recognition of the sinful usurpation, by civil
authorities, of a right to interfere in Christ's house, and to sub-
stitute their laws instead of His in the administration of the
affairs of His kingdom. On these grounds we were compelled,
for conscience' sake, to abandon our connection with the State,
and our enjoyment of the temporalities of the Establishment ;
and we could not have preferred any other ground on which we
might have been called upon to testify for Christ's truth, and to
suffer for His name's sake, than just that great principle which
God in His providence seems to have specially committed to the
custody of the Church of Scotland, — namely, the principle of
Christ's sole right to rule in His own house, — to reign in His
own kingdom, — to govern all its affairs by His own laws, and
through the insti'umentality of His own office-bearers. It is im-
portant to understand the principles on which the Free Church
of Scotland is based, so that we may be able to intelligently
explain and defend them ; and to take care that, in so far as we
are concerned, they shall be fully maintained, duly honoured, and
faithfully applied.

The Free Church of Scotland having been formed in this
way and upon this ground, was naturally led, while adhering to

584 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXVIT.

the whole standards and principles of the Church of Scotland,
and asserting her right to that designation in opposition to the
present ecclesiastical establishment, to introduce into her For-
mulae for licence and ordination a more explicit reference to her
peculiar standing and testimony ; and to this point I would now,
in conclusion, briefly advert. The principal changes which, since
the Disruption, have been made upon the Formulas are these :
first, the substitution of the word Erastian for the word Bourignian
in the third question, and the introduction of the fifth question
bearing more immediately upon the causes and grounds of the
Disruption, and the special standing and testimony of the Free
Church. By the old Formulae, originally adopted in 1711, and
still used in the Establishment, probationers and ministers are
required to renounce all Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian,
Bourignian, and other doctrines, tenets, and opinions contrary
to the Confession of Faith. As Mrs. Antonia Bourignon is now
almost wholly forgotten, we did not think it necessary to retain a
renunciation of her errors, and have, in consequence, substituted
Erastian in this question instead of Bourignian, as we consider
it an important branch of present duty to bear public testimony
against Erastianism, and think we can easily prove that Erastian
tenets, contrary to the Confession of Faith, are held by many in
the present day who have subscribed it.

The fifth question, introduced into the Formula for the pur-
pose above mentioned, is this : " Do you believe that the Lord
Jesus Christ, as King and Head of His church, has therein ap-
pointed a government in the hands of church officers, distinct
from, and not subordinate in its own province to, civil govern-
ment, and that the civil magistrate does not possess jurisdiction,
or authoritative control, over the regulation of the affairs of
Christ's church ? And do you approve of the general principles
embraced in the Claim, Declaration, and Protest adopted by the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1842, and in the
Protest of ministers, and elders, and commissioners from presby-
teries to the General Assembly, read in presence of the Koyal
Commissioner on the 18th IMay 1843, as declaring the views
which are sanctioned by the word of God, and the standards of
this church, with respect to the spirituality and freedom of the
church of Christ, and her subjection to Him as her only Head,
and to His word as her only standard?"

Sec. IV.] FEEE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 585

I can only add one or two explanatory notes on this question.
It consists of two parts : the first asks assent to certain doctrines
in regard to tlie constitution of Christ's churcli and the relation
between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities ; and the second,
to the general principles embodied in certain documents. It is
expressly laid down in the Confession of Faith, that " Christ, as
King and Head of the church, has therein appointed a govern-
ment, in the hands of church officers, distinct from the civil
magistrate." We know, from the explicit testimony of Baillie,
that this statement was introduced into the Confession for the ex-
press purpose of condemning Erastianism. The able and learned
Erastians of that age saw, and admitted, that it cut up Erastianism
by the roots, and, in consequence, exerted themselves, and suc-
cessfully, to prevent the English Parliament from sanctioning that
part of the Confession. It was often found, in the recent contro-
versies against the Erastians of our day, — who are neither able
nor learned, — that they must either renounce the views they
entertained and the course they pursued, or else abandon this doc-
trine of the Confession, which they had subscribed. We still
regard this great truth as warranting the whole course which we
pursued in our contest with the civil authorities, as it is sanctioned
by the law of the land as well as the word of God ; and we still
proclaim it to be the ground and basis of our peculiar standing
and testimony in regard to the spirituality and freedom of the
church, and its relation to Christ as its only head. The additional
matter introduced into the statement of doctrine in the first part
of this question, we regard as implied in, or deducible from, that
doctrine of the Confession which forms the basis of it, and as
fitted only to bring out more fully and explicitly its import and
application as subversive of all Erastianism. If the government
which Christ has established in His church be distinct from civil
magistracy, it cannot be subordinate in its own province to civil
government. The distinctness of the two naturally implies the
non-subordination of the one to the other ; and this of itself must
be held to be conclusive upon the point, unless it could be proved
that Christ has expressly subordinated the one to the other, — a
position which, though it is the only legitimate foundation of
frank and honest Erastianism, was never openly maintained by
those Erastians with whom we have had to contend.

The non-subordination to civil government of the distinct

586 THE ERASTIAN CONTROVEESY. [Chap. XXVII.

government which Christ has estabhshed in His church, naturally
leads to the next position in the question, which is just an exten-
sion or amplification of what goes before, pointing it more directly
and specifically against the proceedings that produced the Dis-
ruption,— namely, that the civil magistrate does not possess juris-
diction or authoritative control over the regulation of the affairs
of Christ's church. It is also explicitly and formally asserted, in
another position contained in the Confession, — namely, that the
civil magistrate may not assume to himself the " power of the
keys," — a phrase which, according to the usage of divines, might
include the administration of the word and sacraments, but which,
when distinguished from these, as it evidently is in the Confes-
sion, omist mean the exercise of jurisdiction in the regulation of
the affairs of the church. Jurisdiction, or authoritative control,
of course means a right to make laws for the regulation of the
affairs of the church, which are to be obeyed from regard to the
authority that enacted them, or to pronounce decisions which are
to be obeyed, because pronounced by one to whom obedience
in the matter is legitimately due. When any civil magistrate
assumes such jurisdiction or authoritative control in the regulation
of the affairs of Christ's church, he is guilty of sin ; and when
the church submits to the exercise of such jurisdiction, she too
becomes a partaker of his sin, and is involved in all the guilt of it.
The Claim of Eights of 1842, and the Protest of 1843,— the
two documents described in the second part of the question, —
consist, to a large extent, of the proofs and evidences, that the
interferences of the civil authorities with the regulation of eccle-
siastical affairs were violations of the constitution of the country,
and of the laws of the land ; and therefore it is only to the
general principles embodied in them that assent is required. And
these general principles are just those which are set forth in the
first part of the question ; while the reference to these documents
at once connects together scriptural doctrines, constitutional prin-
ciples, and important historical transactions, — all combined in
setting forth the distinctive standing and testimony of the Free
Church of Scotland, and in fully vindicating the position she
now occupies, and the general course of procedure, on her part,
which led to it. These are the only very material changes which
have been introduced into our Formulae for licence and ordina-
tion, subsequently to, and in consequence of, the Disruption.

Sec. IV.] FREE CHUECH OF SCOTLAND. 587

They are directed solely to the object of bringing out more
fully and prominently our distinctive principles and our peculiar
testimony ; while both by what we have retained, and by what
we have changed and added, we at once declare and establish
our claim to be regarded as the true Church of Scotland, — the
inheritors and possessors both of tlie principles and the rights
of those by whom that church was reformed, first from Popery,
and then from Prelacy, and the ecclesiastical supremacy of the
Crown.

INDEX.

Adam—

Connection of the first sin of, with the
fact of universal depravity, i. 335,
337, 341, etc., 504, etc., 512, etc.

Connection of the first sin of, with
guilt in his jjosterity, i. 337, 503, etc.

Representative and federal character
of, i. 338, 341, 502, etc., 515, 527.

Guilt of the first sin of, as an element
of man's condition, i. 502, etc.

Diff'erent opinions held by those who
acknowledge the Scriptures as to the
effects of the fall of, i. 507, etc.

Different opinions held by those who
acknowledge the total depravity of
man as to the effects of the fall of,
i. 510, etc.

Imputation to his posterity of the guilt
of first sin of, i. 512, etc.

Identity between, and his descendants,
i. 513, etc.
Albigenses —

Notice of the, i. 450, etc.

Opposite views of Papists and Protes-
tants as to a visible church in their
application to the Waldenses and,
i. 451, etc.

Positions maintained by Papists as to
Waldenses and, i. 453, etc.
Alexander, Natalis, i. 468.
Ambrose (Bishop of Milan) —

Statement of, as to Apostles' Creed,
i. 82.
Amesius, ii. 378, 390.
Anselm, ii. 248.
Apostles, The —

Did not act in Council of Jerusalem
as inspired men, i. 45, etc.

Jurisdiction of, over church, i. 62.

Obligation of practice of, i. 64, etc.

Limitations to the principle of the bind-
ing authority of practice of, i. 65, etc.

Eules for deciding what is and is not
binding in the practice of, i. 68.

Objections to the principle of the bind-
ing authority of the practice of, i.
69, etc.

Apostles, The —

Cases to which the question of the

authority of the example of, has

been applied, i. 70, 71.
Form of church polity appointed by,

i. 75.
Creed of, i. 79, etc.
Antiquity and authority of the Creed

of, i. 80, etc.
Principle involved in the question as

to apostolic origin of the Creed of,

i. 81.
Historical evidence as to origin of the

Creed of, i. 82, etc.
Successive additions made to the Creed

of, i. 87._
Different interpretations put on the

Creed of, i. 89.
Defects of the Creed of, i, 90, etc.
Apostolic Age —

Heresies of the, i. 121,

Irenseus and Hippolytus the main

sources of information as to heresies

of the, i. 121.
Meaning and use of the word heresy

in the, i. 121, etc.
Gnosticism a general name for the

heresies of the, i. 122, etc.
Apostolical Succession —

Views of Peformers as to, in the

ministry, i, 32.
Aquinas, Thomas —
Influence of, on scholastic theology,

i. 423.
Character and objects of the " Summa

TheologiEe" of, i. 423-4.
Defence of Augustinianism in the writ-
ings of, i. 424.
Arianism —
Testimony of the early church as to,

i. 276, etc.
Doctrines of, not formally discussed

in the church, much before the

Council of Nice, i. 280.
The doctrines of, condemned in the

Nicene Creed, i. 280, etc.
Dislike felt by the adherents of, to the

590

INDEX.

Aeianism —

language of the Mcene Creed, i. 287,-
etc.
Difference between the language of,
and that of the Nicene Creed, i. 289,
etc.
Distinction between, and semi-Arian-
ism, i. 291, etc.
Abminian —

The, view as to the ground of justifica-
tion, ii. 48, etc.
The, doctrine as to the imputation of
faith instead of righteousness, ii. 49,
etc.
The, view of the atonement, ii. 300,

etc.
Substance of the, doctrine of a uni-
versal and unlimited atonement, ii.
301-2, 324.
The, denial of the necessity of an

atonement, ii. 304.
The, denial of the penal nature of

Christ's sufferings, ii. 305.
The, doctrine of Christ's satisfaction
involving a relaxation of the divine
law, ii. 311, etc.
The, doctrine of a new covenant
entered into with men in conse-
quence of the atonement of Christ,
ii. 314.
Leading positions involved in the doc-
trine as to the results of Christ's
death, ii. 317, etc.
The, controversy, ii. 371, etc.
Origin and progress of, views in the

Reformed churches, ii. 372, etc.
The, system of theology under dif-
ferent modifications to be recognised
in the time of Clemens Romanus, in
the Church of Rome, and in the
Wesleyan Methodists, ii. 374, etc.
Fundamental characteristic of the,
theology in the midst of its diver-
sities, ii. 377, etc.
The five points of the, system, ii. 384,

etc.
The, views of original sin, ii. 388, etc.,

392.
Common, method of discussing the
subjects of original sin and divine
grace, ii. 390.
The, views as to universal caUing, ii.

396, etc.
Difficulties of the, doctrine as to uni-
versal calling in the case of those to
whom the gospel is not made known,
ii. 397, etc.
Difficulties of the, doctrine of univer-
sal calling in the case of those to
whom the gospel is made known,
ii. 400, etc.

Aeminian —

The, and Calvinistic views of the irre-
sistibility of divine grace, ii. 410, etc.

The, and Calvinistic views as to the
decrees of God, ii. 423, etc.

No more than two alternatives, the
Calvinistic and the, in the question
of predestination, ii. 431.

Diff"erence between the, and the So-
cinian views as to predestination,
ii. 434.

Real points in dispute in the question
as to the Calvinistic and, views of
predestination, ii. 436-8.

The, distinction between foreknow-
ledge and fore-ordination, ii. 444.

The, tendency to deny or explain away
the omniscience of God in connection
with the controversy as to predes-
tination, ii. 442, etc.

The, attempt to answer the argumfents
for predestination by alleging that
our knowledge of God is analogical,
ii. 447, etc.

The, view of the will of God in con-
nection with the question of predes-
tination, ii. 454.

The, objections against the Calvinistic
doctrine of predestination, ii. 472,
etc.

The, objections not sufficient to dis-
prove predestination, ii. 479, etc.

The, objections against predestination
directed equally against the doings
as the decrees of God, ii. 482, etc.

The, objections against predestination
cannot prove it to be inconsistent
with perfections of God, or respon-
sibility of man, ii. 484, etc.

The, objections involve no difficulties
peculiar to the Calvinistic system,
ii. 487, etc.

The, system in relation to Socinianism
and Calvinism, ii. 501, etc.

Remarks suggested by a review of the
Calvinistic, Socinian, and, systems,
ii. 502, etc.
Arminius —

Account of, and the Arminians, ii. 371,
etc.

First important public movement
against Calvinism to be dated from,
ii. 372.

Differences between the views of, and
those of his followers, ii. 375, etc.

Views of, as to grace, ii. 407.
Opinions of, as to perseverance of the
saints, ii. 491.
Asceticism —

Influence of Gnosticism on the, of the
early church, i. 129, etc.

INDEX.

591

Athakasius —

Statement by, as to decrees of the

Council of Nice, i. 293.
Atonement —

The doctrine of the, ii. 237, etc.
Substance of the Scripture doctrine of

the, ii. 246, etc.
Statement by Westminster Confession

as to the, of Christ, ii. 247.
The necessity of the, ii. 249, etc.
Denial by Socinians of the necessity of

the, ii. 251.
Scripture grounds for asserting the

necessity of the, ii. 253, etc.
Connection between the necessity and

reality of, ii. 260.
Connection between the necessity of

an, and the nature of it, ii. 261, etc.
Indispensable conditions of any pro-
vision made for an, ii. 263, etc.
Substitution necessary for making an,

ii. 264.
Qualifications of any substitute making

an, ii. 265.
Suffering of Christ inexplicable except

on the idea of, ii. 266, etc.
Full provision made by the, for the

glory of God when pardoning sin,

ii. 269, etc.
Objections to the doctrine of, ii. 270,

etc.
The, the consequence, not the cause,

of God's love, ii. 271.
Objection to the doctrine of, that it is

unjust to punish the innocent in

room of the guilty, ii. 272, etc.
Objection to the doctrine of, that it is

inconsistent with the free grace of

God, ii. 275, etc.
Objection to the doctrine of, that it is

unfriendly to morality, ii. 277, etc.
Scriptural evidence for the, ii. 281,

etc.
Scripture words furnishing evidence of

the doctrine of, ii. 283.
Scripture statements furnishing evi-
dence of the doctrine of, ii. 284, etc.
The priestly and sacrificial character

ascribed to Christ's office and work

an evidence of the doctrine of, ii.

284-7.
Scripture passages bearing on nature

and object of Christ's death an evi-
dence of the doctrine of, ii. 287-90.
Scripture passages describing the

effects of Christ's death an evidence

of the doctrine of, ii. 290-93.
Socinian view of the, ii. 294, etc.
Allegation that the Scripture language

bearing on the, is only figurative,

ii. 296, etc.

Atonement —

Allegation that the Scripture state-
ments about the, describe merely the
results, and not the means by which
they are effected, ii. 299, etc.

Arminiam view of the, ii. 301, etc.,
354.

Substance of the Arminian doctrine
of a universal or unlimited, ii.
301-2.

Connection between the nature and
the extent of the, ii. 303-4, etc.

Denial by Arminians of the necessity
of the, ii. 304.

Denial by Arminians of the penal
character of the sufferings of Christ
in making, ii. 305.

Three leading views of Christ's suffer-
ings in making, ii. 305.

Dr. Owen's opinions as to the identical
sameness of the penalty incurred
with the sufferings endured as an,
ii. 306.

The idem and the tantundem as to the
sufferings of Christ in, ii. 307.

The doctrme of a substitute, and not
an equivalent, as applied to the, ii.
309.

The doctrine of the, involving a relaxa-
tion of the divine law, ii. 311.

The doctrine of a new covenant with
men founded on the, ii. 314.

Leading positions involved in- the Ar-
minian view of the, ii. 317.

Extent of the, ii. 323, etc.

Calvinistic view of a limited, ii. 326.

Doctrine of the Westminster Confes-
sion as to the extent of the, ii. .326-7.

Arminian view of a universal, ii. 329-30.

Distinction between the sufficiency
and the universality of the, ii. 331.

Distinction between the universality
of the, and the universality of cer-
tain benefits derived from it, ii. 332.

Doctrine of a general and special re-
ference in the, ii. 335.

Scriptural evidence as to extent of
the, ii. 336.

The three leading departments of
Scripture evidence as to extent of,
ii. 337, etc.

Principles of interpretation to be ap-
lied to Scripture passages that seem
to speak of a universal, ii. 338, etc.

Failure of attempts to explain away
Scripture passages that assert a
limited, ii. 341, etc.

The extent of the, and the gospel
off'er, ii. 343, etc.

Two questions to be considered in dis-
cussing the consistency of a uni-

592

INDEX.

Atonement —

versal offer and a limited, ii. 344,
etc.

The extent of the, and the object of
it, ii. 348, etc.

Leading arguments against the doc-
trine of universal, ii. 349.

Defective definition laid down by
universalists in regard to the, ii.
349, etc.

The ideas of substitution and satis-
faction involved in the doctrine
of, disprove its universality, ii. 351,
etc.

Different extents to which universal-
ists go in their views as to, ii. 357.

Extent of the, and Calvinistic prin-
cij)les, ii. 3C0, etc.

Inconsistency of the Calvinistic doc-
trine of election with uni versa], ii.
361, etc.

The doctrine of, to be viewed, not by
itself, but in connection with its ob-
ject and application, ii. 364, etc.

Tendency of the doctrine of universal,
ii. 367, etc,
Augustine —

Character and qualifications of, i. 326,
329, 331,

Pelagian heresy opposed and put down
by, i. 330.

Doctrines of grace first systematically
developed by, i. 331.

Chief defects in the theology of, i.
331-2.

Teaching of, on the connection be-
tween Adam's sin and the depravity
of all his posterity, i. 337, etc., 341.

Doctrine of, as to irresistibility of
divine grace, i. 351, etc.

Doctrine of, as to perseverance of the
saints, i. 355, 356-8.

Imperfect views of, as to nature of
justification, ii. 41,
Authorities —

The civil and ecclesiastical, i, 390, etc.

Historical account of the relations be-
tween the civil and ecclesiastical, i.
390.
, Questions under which the subject of
the relations between the civil and
ecclesiastical, may be discussed, i.
390.

Doctrine of co-ordination of civil and
ecclesiastical, i. 394, etc.

Presbyterian views as to the relations
of the civil and ecclesiastical, i. 395,
406, 409.

Equality and independence of civil
and ecclesiastical, not inconsistent
■with reason, i, 395-6.

Authorities —

Erastian system as to relations of the
civil and ecclesiastical, i. 396, etc.

Popish theory as to relations of the
civil and ecclesiastical, i. 402, etc.,
407, etc.

Agreement and difference between
Popish and Presbyterian views as
to relations of the civil and eccle-
siastical, i. 403-10.

Substance of scriptural doctrine as to
relations of civil and ecclesiastical,
i. 412, 436, etc.

Views of the Reformers as to the re-
lations between the civil and eccle-
siastical, ii. 558.

Luther's views as to power of civil, in
relation to religion, ii. 567, etc.

Calvin's views as to power of civil,
about religion, ii. 568,

Baius, i. 486, 505, 518, 521, 528, 577 ; ii.

383.
Baptism —

Controversy as to a repetition of
heretical, i. 167, etc.

Opinions of early church as to, i. 203.

Practice as to delay of, in early
church, i. 204,

Adult participation in, the case usually
contemplated in speaking of it, ii.
125, etc.

The idea of adult, to be kept in view
in interpreting the Reformed Con-
fessions, ii. 127, etc., 144.

Statement by the Westminster Con-
fession as to the nature of, ii. 128-
135.

Doctrine of regeneration by, ii. 133,
etc.

Scripture evidence as to doctrine of
regeneration by, ii. 135, etc.

Infant, ii. 144, etc.

Doctrine of Confession of Faith as to
infant, ii. 147.

Position to be maintained by the de-
fenders of infant, ii. 147, etc.

Scripture evidence in support of in-
fant, ii. 149, etc.

General objections to doctrine of in-
fant, ii. 150, etc.

Statement by Calvin as to infant, ii,
153.
Barclay, i. 407.
Barnabas —

Notice of, i. 95-6.

Spuriousness of the epistle ascribed to,
i. 96.
Baronius —

Annals of the church by, i. 37.
Barkow, i. 170, 219, 223 ; ii, 328.

INDEX.

593

Baxter, ii. 306, 328.
Bellarmine —

DefiDition of cliurcli by, i. 11.
Notes of church as stated by, i. 22.
View of, as to controversy about the

observance of Easter, i. 145.
Attempts by, to evade the testimony
of the early church in favour of the
rights of the Christian people, i. 193,
etc.
Statement by, as to supremacy of the

Pope, i. 212-3.
Grounds on which the claim to su-
premacy by the Pope is rested by,
i. 216, etc.
Fatal defects in argument of, as to
supremacy of the Pope, i. 218, etc.,
221, etc.
Statement by, as to worship of images,

i. 368-9.
Positions laid down by, as to Fall, i.

505, etc.
Statement by, as to original righteous-
ness, i. 520.
Arguments of, as to Scripture doctrine
of the sinfulness of works done after
regeneration, i. 560, etc.
Statement by, as to freedom of the

■will, i. 577.
Statement by, as to ground or cause

of justification, ii. 19.
Statements by, as to faith as the means
of justification, ii. 24-5-6, 28, 80-1.
Statement by, as to trust to be placed
in good works, ii. 109.
Belsham, ii. 167, 184, 190, 196.
Beman, Dr., ii. 358.
Beza, i. 236 ; ii. 543, 544, 564, 573.
Bingham, i. 273.

Blondel, i. 97, 110, 191, 251, 252.
Boehmer —

Opinion of, as to Council of Jerusalem,
i. 61.
Bossuet —

Positions maintained by, and other
Papists, as to Waldenses and Albi-
genses, i. 453, etc.
Explanations by, as to the decree of

Council of Florence, i. 470.
Accusations by, against the Synod of
Dort, ii. 382.
Bradwardine, i. 476,
Brown, Dr. John, i. 92.
Budd.eds, i. 435.
Bull, Bishop —

Opinion of, as to authority of church
in interpretation of Scripture, i. 173,
etc.
Views of, as to testimony of the early

church as to Trinity, i. 269, etc.
Explanations by, as to the opinions
3 — VOL. II.

Bull, Bishop —

of the early church on Trinity, i.
277, etc.
Definition by, of the word ofz-ooicno;, or
consubstantial, i. 283.

Calderwood, i. 405.
Calling—

Universal and effectual, ii. 394, etc.

Arminian views as to universal, ii.
396, etc.

DifSculties of the Arminian views as
to universal, ii. 397, etc.

Calvinistic view of effectual, ii. 403,
411,

Statement by the Shorter Catechism
as to effectual, ii. 411.

Renovation of the will, an important
step in the process of effectual, ii.
411, etc.
Calvin —

Admission by, as to apostolic origin
of Apostles' Creed, i. 81.

Doctrinal system of, not matter of
discussion in the early church, i.
179, etc.

No presumption from primitive an-
tiquity against the peculiar doc-
trines of, i. 180.

Statement by, as to Trinity, i. 397,

Views of, as to the doctrine of the
Council of Trent on the fall, i. 499,
500, 538.

Doctrine of, as to sinfulness of works
done before regeneration, i. 550,
etc.

Views of, as to freedom of the will,
i. 574.

Views of, as to the will in regenera-
tion, i. 616.

Statement by, as to God's permission
of sin, i. 632-3.

Misrepresentation of views of, on
nature of justification, ii. 14, 15.

Views of, as to faith, or the means of
justification, ii. 23.

Statement by, as to Popish doctrine
of justification, ii. 1 14.

Statement by, as to infant baptism,
ii. 153.

Correspondence of, with Lifilius So-
cinus, ii. 158,

Fundamental principles of the doc-
trinal system of, held by all the
Reformers, ii. 371.

Early departure from the doctrines of,
in the Lutheran Church and the
Reformed Church of the Nether-
lands, ii. 372.

System of, in relation to Arminianism
and Socinianism, ii. 501.

2 P

594

INDEX.

Calvin —

Remarks suggested by a review of the
system of, and of Arminianism and
Socinianism, ii. 502.

Views of, as to church government,
ii. 518, etc.

Views of, as to power of civil magis-
trate about religion, ii. 568.
Cameron, ii. 324, 329, 364.
Campbell, Dr.^

View of, as to Scripture views of the
word church, i. 19.
Canon Law —

Enactments of the, as to rights of
church members, i. 192.

Notice of the, i. 426, etc.

The " Decree of Gratian," the founda-
tion of the, i. 426.

Origin and history of the, i. 427-9.

Contents and substance of the Decree
of Gratian on the, i. 429.

Character of the, i. 430, etc.

Testimonies in the, in favour of Pro-
testant and Presbyterian principles,
i. 432, etc.

Statement by Luther as to character
of the, i. 434.
Carpenter, Dr. Lant, ii. 295.
Castellio, ii. 371.
Catechism —

Statement by the Larger, on distinc-
tion of persons in Godhead, i. 294,
295.

Doctrine of the Shorter, as to person
of Christ, i. 310, 311.

Meaning of the phrase Original 8m in
the Larger and Shorter, i. 497.

Doctrine of the Shorter, as to the fall,
i. 501, etc.

Doctrine of the Shorter, as to the want
of original righteousness, i. 516.

Statement by the Larger, as to the
place of faith in justification, ii. 74.

Statement by the Shorter, as to the
nature of the sacraments, ii. 128.

Statement by the Shorter, as to atone-
ment of Christ, ii. 246.

Statement by the Shorter, as to effec-
tual calling, ii. 411.
Cerinthus —

Opinions of, as to Christ, i. 125, 127.

Reference in Gospel by John to opin-
ions of, i. 125, 127, etc.
Chalcedon —

Doctrine of the Council of, on the
person of Christ, i. 311, 314.
Clemens Alexandbinus —

Notice of, i. 146.

Injurious influence of, on the inter-
pretation of Scripture, and the sys-
tem of divine truth, i. 148, etc.

Clemens Alexandrintjs —

Character of the works of, i. 149, etc.

Erroneous views and tendencies of,
i. 150, etc.
Chalmers, Dr. —

Views and statements by, as to sin-
fulness of works done before re-
generation, i. 553, etc.
Chemnitius, ii. 18.
Chillingwortii —

Fallacy of reasoning by, founded on
the early prevalence of Prelacy in
the church, i. 261, etc.
Christ —

Doctrine of the person of, i. 307, etc.

What is implied in the union of the
divine and human natures in, i. 308,
etc.

Statement of the Shorter Catechism
as to the constitution of the person
of, i. 310.

Eutychian controversy as to the person
of, i. 311, etc.

Doctrine of Westminster Confession of
Faith as to person of, i. 311.

Scriptural considerations bearing on
the question of the person of, i. 312,
etc.

Union without change of the two
natures in the person of, i. 314, etc.

No more than one person belonged to,
i. 316.

Doctrine of hypostatical union in the
person of, i. 317.

Usage of Scripture language in attri-
buting what is proper to the one
nature of, to the person denominated
by the other, i. 318, etc.

Evidence for the divinity of, ii. 213,
etc.

Classification of Scripture proof for the
divinity of, ii. 217, etc.

Socinian mode of dealing with evi-
dence for the divinity of, ii. 219,
etc.

General considerations fitted to meet
the Socinian mode of dealing with
the evidence for the divinity of, ii.
222, etc.

Interest and importance of the study
of the evidence for the divinity of,
ii. 225, etc.

Considerations to be kept in view in
the study of the evidences for the
divinity of, ii. 227, etc.

The Socinian and Arian views of the
evidence for divinity of, partial and
defective, ii. 229, etc.

The demand for other and greater evi-
dence for divinity of, unreasonable,
ii. 232, etc.

INDEX.

595

Christ—

Responsibility connected with tlie

admission or denial of the divinity

of, ii. 234, etc.
Connection between the person and

the work of, ii. 237, etc.
Socinian, Arian, and orthodox views

of the connection between the per-
son and work of, ii. 238, etc.
Work of, represented under the three-
fold office of Prophet, Priest, and

King, ii. 238, 241.
Socinian A'iew of, as merely a Prophet,

ii. 242.
The priestly office of, the most peculiar

and important, ii. 243, etc.
Connection between the death of, and

the forgiveness of sin, ii. 244, etc.
Doctrine of the atonement of, ii. 24G,

etc.
Sufferings of, inexplicable except on

the idea of atonement, ii. 2G6.
The priestly and sacrificial character

ascribed in Scripture to the office

and work of, an evidence of atone-
ment, ii. 283-6.
Scripture passages bearing on the

nature and object of the death of,

an evidence of atonement, ii. 286-

9.
Scripture passages describing the

effect of the death of, an evidence

of atonement, ii. 289-92.
Three leading views entertained as to

whether or not, suffered the penalty

of sin, ii. 305, etc.
Opinion of Dr. Owen that, suflFered

the very same penalty as sinners

had deserved, ii. 306, etc.
The idem and the tantundem as to the

sufferings of, ii. 307, etc.
The doctrine of the sufferings of, being

a substitute, and not an equivalent,

ii. 309.
The doctrine of the satisfaction of,

involving a relaxation of the divine

law, ii. 311.
The doctrine of the atonement of, as

the foundation of a new covenant

with man, ii. 314.
Church — •

History of, i. 1 .

Divisions under which history of, has

commonly been treated, i. 2.
Chief objects to be aimed at, in study-
ing history of, i. 4, 7.
Superior importance of history of the

Christian, i. 5.
Divisions under which history of

Christian, usually considered, i. 6.
Comparative importance of the study

Church —

of the history of, before and after

the Eeformation, i. 7, 8.
Nature of, i. 9, etc.
Popish and Protestant definitions of,

i. 10, etc.
Scripture view of, i. 12, etc.
Invisible and visible, i. 13, etc., 17.
Catholic or general, i. 14, etc.
Visibility not an essential property

of, i. 16.
Indefectibility of, i. 16-18.
Infallibility of, i. 17.
Senses of the word church in Scrip-
ture, i. 18, etc.
Notes of the, i. 20, etc.
Unity, sanctity, apostolicity, and

catholicity of, i. 22, etc.
Promises to the, i. 27, etc., 33.
llelation of ministry and the, i. 28,

etc.
Essential note of a true, i. 29.
Popish and Protestant theories of the

history of the, i. 35, etc.
Importance to Popery of the theory

adopted as to the history of, i. 38.
Rule for administration of the power

of the, i. 47, etc.
Scripture a sufficient rule for the, i.

49, etc.
Authority of the officers of the, i. 50,

etc.
Authority of councils or courts of the,

i. 53, etc.
Standing of the ordinary members of

the, i. 54, etc.
Subordination of courts of the, i. 59,

etc.
Obligation of apostolic example in the

matter of the government and wor-
ship of the, i. 64, etc. , 65, 68, etc.
Temporal maintenance of the ministry

of the, i. 71.
Jus divinmn of a form of government

for the, i. 73, etc.
Mode of proving Presbyterianism to

be the scriptural scheme of govern-
ment for the, i. 75, etc.
Views of those who deny a jus divinmn

in the polity of the, i. 77, etc.
Views of Cyprian on the unity and

catholicity of the, i. 169, etc.
Opinions of Cyprian as to government

of the, i. 170, etc.
Condition for the first two centuries

of the, i. 172, etc.
Authority of the, in the interpretation

of Scripture, i. 172, etc.
Silent and extensive declension of the,

from the scriptural model during the

first two centuries, i. 177, etc., 184.

596

INDEX.

Church —

Views of the early, as to the doctrines
of grace, i. 179, etc., 183, etc.

Testimony of the early, as to suffi-
ciency of Scripture, i. 184, etc.

Views of the early, as to tradition,
i. 186.

Teaching of the early, as to the duty
of reading the Scripture, i. 188,
etc.

Eights of the Christian people in the
opinion of the early, i. 189, etc.

Attempts to evade the testimony of
the early, as to rights of the Chris-
tian people, i. 193, etc.

Opinions and practice of the, during
the first two centuries, as to idola-
try, i. 199, etc.

Doctrine and practice of the early,
as to the sacraments, i. 201, etc.

First steps in the progress of error in
the earJy, i. 202-3.

Opinions and practice of early, as to
baptism, i. 203, etc.

Views of early, as to Lord's Supper, i.
205, etc.

Opinions of early, as to transubstan-
tiation, i. 205-6.

Supremacy of the Pope not sanctioned
by the opinions and history of the
early, i. 207, etc., 221, etc., 225, etc.

The great mass of the tenets and
practices of Popery has no warrant
from the early, i. 207, etc.

The constitution and government of
the, i. 227, etc.

State of the question, and onus pro-
handi, in the controversy as to
government of the, i. 232, 234, 237,
239.

Examination of the leading arguments
in favour of Prelacy in the, i. 240,
etc.

Historical facts as to early existence
of Prelacy in the, i. 256, etc.

Explanation of the origin and pro-
gress of Prelacy in the early, i. 258,
etc.

Testimony of the early, as to Trinity,
i. 267, etc.

Sabellian opinions never professed ex-
cept by individuals in the early, i.
272, etc.

Socinianism never sanctioned by
opinion of the early, i. 274, etc.

Testimony of the early, as to Arian-
ism, i. 276, etc.

Testimony of the early, as to idolatry,
i. 359, etc.

Perpetuity and visibility of the, i. 446,
etc.

Church —

Allegations by Papists as to perpetuity
and visibility of the, i. 446.

Historical questions connected with
the assertion of the perpetuity and
visibility of the, i. 447.

Claims of the Greek and Romish com-
munions in connection with the per-
petual visibility of the, i. 447, etc.

Views of some Protestants as to un-
interrupted existence of a visible, i.

451, etc.

Opposite views of Papists and Pro-
testants as to a visible, in applica-
tion to Waldenses and Albigenses, i.

452, etc.

The, at the era of the Reformation,

i. 459, etc.
State of doctrine in the, at the time of

the Reformation, i. 463, etc.
Doctrinal errors formally sanctioned

by the, before the Reformation, i.

464, etc.
Doctrinal errors not formally sanc-
tioned, but generally taught, by the,

before the Reformation, i. 473, etc.
Government of the, ii. 514.
Questions discussed in connection with

the subject of the government of

the, ii. 514.
Views of the Reformers as to the go-
vernment of the, ii. 514, etc.
Views of Romanists as to government

of the, ii. 515, etc.
Historical notices as to discussion of

the question of government of, ii.

516.
Views of Luther as to government of

the, ii. 517, etc.
Views of Calvin as to government of

the, ii. 518, etc.
Views of Romanists and the Council

of Trent as to government of the,

ii. 519, etc.
Testimony of the Reformers as to the

question of the government of the,

ii. 525, etc.
Unfounded allegation of Prelatists as

to the opinions of the Reformers on

the government of the, ii. 529, etc.
Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches on

the government of the, ii. 532.
Popular election of office-bearers in

the, ii. 534, etc., 538.
The ministry instituted for the, and

not the church for the ministry, ii.

536.
Views of the Reformers as to popular

election of office-bearers in the, ii

538.
Statement of Beza as to popular

INDEX.

597

Church —

election of office-bearers in the, ii.

543 etc.
The Free, of Scotland, ii. 583.
Principles on which the Free, of Scot-
land is based, ii. 583, etc.
Explanation of questions put to mini-
sters at their ordination in the Free,

of Scotland, ii. 584, etc.
Church History —
Nature of, i. 1.
Divisions under which it has been

treated, i. 2.
Chief objects to be aimed at in study

of, i. 4-7.
Comparative importance of study of,

before and after the Reformation,

1. 7, 8.
Popislx and Protestant theories of, i.

35, etc.
Importance to Popery of the theory

adopted as to, i. 38.
Church history to a large extent the

history of Popery, i. 41.
Church of England —

Definition of the church in the Articles

of, i. 30.
Power of the church to decree rites

and ceremonies, asserted in the

Articles of the, i. 72.
Declaration by the, as to Prelacy, i.

230-1.
Doctrine of the, as to sinfulness of

works done before regeneration, i.

546.
Views of the, as to church govern-
ment, ii. 524.
Church Members —
Rights of, according to the opinion of

the early church, i. 189, etc.
Testimony of Clemens Romanus as to

rights of, i. 190.
Testimony of Cyprian as to rights of,

i. 191.
Enactments of the Canon Law as to

rights of, i. 192, 432-3.
Concessions by opponents as to the

testimony of early church in favour

of the rights of, i. 193.
Attempts to evade the testimony of

the early church in favour of the

rights of, i. 193, etc.
Rights of, in the election of office-
bearers, ii. 534, 535.
Opinion of the Reformers as to right

of, in the election of office-bearers,

ii. 538, etc.
Statement of Beza as to rights of,

in election of office - bearers, ii.

543.
Claude, i. 27.

Clemens Romanus —

Notice of, i. 97, etc.

Epistles ascribed to, i. 97-8.

Integrity of epistle to Corinthians by,
i. 98, etc.

Alleged references to the disparity of
bishops and presbyters in epistle of,
i. 100, etc., 244, etc.

Character of, and of his writings, i.
103.

The only important information given
by, i. 104.

Testimony of, as to rights of church
members, i. 190.
Concupiscence —

Doctrine of, i. 531, etc.

View of Westminster Confession as to,
i. 532.

Decree of Council of Trent as to, i.
532-3.

Sinfulness of, i. 534, etc.

Doctrine of Romanists as to the non-
sinfulness of, i. 536, etc.
Constance, Council of —

Authority of the, i. 471.

Principle of the lawfulness of break-
ing faith with heretics, asserted by,
i. 472.

Communion in one kind taught by, i.
472.
C0NSUB.STANTIALITY —

Doctrine of, i. 279, etc.

Meaning of, i. 281, etc., 283.

The Nicene Creed an accurate ex-
pression of the scriptural doctrine
of, i. 284, etc.

The propriety of embodying the doc-
trine of, in a test of orthodoxy, i.
286, etc.
Conybeare, i. 113.

CORRUrTION—

Doctrine of, of man's nature, i. 528,

etc.
Views of Romanists and Protestants

as to the, of man's nature, i. 529.
Creed, Apostles', i. 79, etc.

Antiquity and authority of Apostles',

i. 80, etc.
Principle involved in the question as

to the apostolic origin of Apostles',

i. 81.
Historical evidence as to origin of the

Apostles', i. 82, etc.
Views of Romanists as to Apostles',

i. 85, etc.
Additions successively made to the

Apostles', i. 87.
The different interpretations put on

the Apostles', i. 89.
Defects of the Apostles', i. 90, etc.
Curcell^us, ii. 303, 367, 375, 446.

598

INDEX.

CURETON —

Edition of Epistles of Ignatius by, i.

117, etc.
Cyprian —

Notice of, i. 163, etc.

Character and theological opinions of,

i. 164, etc.
Part taken in the Novatian contro-
versy by, i. 105, etc.
Part taken in the controversy about

the rebaptizing of heretics by, i. 167,

etc.
Views of, as to unity of church, i. 169,

etc.
Statements of, as to the government

of the church, i. 170, etc.
Testimony of, as to rights of church

members, i. 191.
Statement by, as to supremacy of the

Bishop of jRome, i. 223.
Testimony and writings of, in relation

to Prelacy, i. 252, etc.

Daille —

Opinions of, as to Epistles of Ignatius,
i. Ill, etc., 114, etc.
Davenant, i. 563.
Decrees of God —

The doctrine of the, ii. 41 6, etc.

Topics involved in the discussion of
the question as to the, ii. 419.

Explanation of terms employed in the
controversy as to the, ii. 420.

Remarks on the phraseology of the
Westminster Confession on the sub-
ject of the, ii. 421, etc.

Calvinistic and Arminian ^dews as to
the, ii. 423, etc.

Two main questions to be discussed
in connection with the, ii. 424.

Order in which the doctrine of elec-
tion and that of reprobation ought
to be discussed, under the general
head of the, ii. 427, etc.

Tendency among some Calvinists to
omit all mention of the, in connec-
tion with those who perish, ii. 429.

Two acts involved in the, with refer-
ence to those who perish, ii. 429-30.
Dens, ii. 19.
Depravity —

The doctrine of, i. 333.

Representations of Scripture and ex-
perience as to the fact of universal,
i. 334, 339.

The fact and the explanation of the
fact of universal, to be carefully dis-
tinguished, i. 335, etc., 338.

Bearing of Adam's sin on the fact of
universal, i, 337, etc., 341, 502, etc.,
515, 527.

Depravity —

Scriptural explanation of the fact of
universal, i. 340, etc.

Difficulties of the scriptural explana-
tion of the fact of universal, of small
account, i. 342.

Principal question in connection with
the doctrine of universal, i. 343.

Statement by Westminster Confession
as to the extent of human, i. 343.

Connection between doctrine of, and
those of divine grace and free-will,
i. 344.
Development —

Theory of, in connection with the his-
tory of the church, i. 39, etc.

Theory of, had recourse to by Papists
in defence of their doctrines, i.
208-9.

Causes leading to the promulgation of
the theory of, in recent times, i.
210.

DiOGNETUS —

Epistle to, i. 106, etc.

DOCET^ —

Opinions of, as to Christ's person, i.
124.
DoRT, Synod of —

Account of the, ii. 373, 379, etc.

Charges alleged against the, ii. 380-1.

Accusations by Bossuet against the,
ii. 382, etc.
Du Moulin, ii. 380.
DuPiN, i. 86.
DURANDUS, i. 414.

Easter —

Controversy about the time of the

celebration of, i. 142, etc.
Bearing of controversy about, on the
claim of the Bishop of Rome, i. 144,
etc.
Edwards, Jonathan —

Statement by, as to universal depra-
vity, i. 339.
Countenance given by, to the doctrine
of a physical identity between Adam
and his posterity, i. 513.
Ephesus, Council of —

Condemnation by the, of the Pelagian
heresy, i. 328-9.
Episcopius, ii. 446.
Erasmus—

Statement of, as to Apostles' Creed, i.
86.
Erastian —
The, controversy, ii. 557, etc.
Manner in which the, controversy was
discussed at the Reformation, ii. 558,
etc.
Views of the Reformers in connection

INDEX.

599

Eeastiak —

with the, principle, ii. 559, 561, etc,,
573, etc.

History of the, controversy in Hol-
land, ii. 577.

History of the, controversy in Great
Britain, ii. 581.

The, controversy, in its results the
cause of the formation of the Free
Church of Scotland, ii. 583.
Erastianism —

Doctrine of, i. 396, etc.

Historical account of, i. 397, etc.

Use and meaning of the word, i. 399,
etc.

Usual positions taken up by the ad-
vocates of, i. 400, 401.

Main question to be determined in the
discussion of the system of, i. 400.

Notice of, during the seventeenth
century, ii. 576, etc.
Ekastus —

Notice of, ii. 569, etc.

Views held by, ii. 570, etc.
Ernesti, ii. 240.
EusEBius, i. 105, 144, 255, 275.

EUTYCHIAN —

Notice of the, controversy, i. 311, etc.
Scriptural considerations bearing on

the, controversy, i. 312, etc.
Practical use to be made of a study of

the, heresy, i. 319.

Faber —

Principles of, as to visible church in

connection with Waldenses and Al-

bigenses, i. 453, etc.
Failure by, to establish an unbroken

succession through Waldenses and

Albigenses, i. 457, etc.
Faith —

The work of divine grace and, i. 350.
Views of Romanists and Keformers as

to, as the means of justification, ii.

22, etc.
Definition of, by Romanists and Pro-
testants, ii. 27, etc.
Views of Romanists as to the merit

of, ii. 28.
Views of Arminians as to imputation

of, instead of righteousness, ii. 49,

etc.
Justification by, ii. 56, etc.
Questions involved in the controversy

about justification by, alone, ii. 56-7.
Nature of justifying, ii. 57, etc.
The question whether, alone justifies,

ii. 61, etc.
Exclusion of works in the matter of

justification from any co-operation

with, ii. 64, etc.

Faith —

Reconciliation of Paul and James in
the question of justification by, ii.
66, etc,

Oflice of, in justifying, ii. 68, etc.

Doctrine that, is the instrument of re-
ceiving the righteousness of Christ,
ii. 70, etc.

Different views entertained as to the
place and use of, in justification, ii.
72, etc.

In what sense, is a condition of justi-
fication, ii. 74, etc.

Objections to the scriptural doctrine
of justification by, ii. 79, etc.

Connection between justification by,
and sanctification, ii. 82, etc.

The doctrine of justification by, fur-
nishes the strongest motives to holi-
ness, ii. 86, etc.

Influence of the doctrine of justifica-
tion by, upon obedience, ii. 87, etc.

Dispute as to, in the five points of the
Arminian system, ii. 385, etc.
Fall —

The doctrine of the, i. 496, etc.

Popish and Protestant views of the,
i. 496, etc.

Teaching of the Popish Church at the
time of the Reformation on the sub-
ject of the, i. 497.

Decree of the Council of Trent on the
subject of the, i. 498, etc.

Positions laid down by Bellarmine as
to the, i. 505, etc.

Different opinions held by those who
acknowledge the Scriptures as to the
effects of the, i. 507, etc.

Different opinions held by those who
acknowledge the total depravity of
man as to effects of the, i. 510,
etc.

The doctrine of imputation as an ex-
planation of the effects of the, i. 512,
etc., 515.

General view suggested to answer ob-
jections to doctrine of the, i. 527.
Fathers —

Account of the apostolical, i. 94, etc.

General lessons taught by the history
of the apostolical, i. 95, 120.

Persons usually comprehended under
the name of the apostolical, i. 95.

Notice of the, of the second and third
centuries, i. 134.

Authority of the, in relation to the
interpretation of Scripture, i. 172,
etc.

Value to be attached to the opinions
and writings of the, i. 174, etc.

No valuable or certain information

600

INDEX.

Fathers —

given by the, beyond what is con-
tained in Scripture, i. 176.
Views of the early, as to doctrines of

grace, i. 179, etc., 183, etc.
Testimony of, to the sufficiency of

Scripture, i. 185.
Views of early, as to free-will, i. 181,

etc.
Professed deference of Romanists to

the, i. 196.
Unfair methods employed by Eoman-

ists in dealing with the testimony of

the, i. 197, etc.
Objects to be aimed at in estimating

the testimony of the, i. 197-8.
Field —

Statement by, as to late introduction

of the corruptions of Popery, i. 444,

463.
Flaccus Tllyricus, i. 451.
Florence, Council of —
Authority of, i. 468.
Doctrine of purgatory taught by the,

i. 468-9.
Supremacy of the Pope decreed by the,

i. 469.
Explanations by Bossuet as to the

decree of the, i. 471.
Forbes, i. 333, 366.

GlESELER, i. 171, 206.
Gill, Dr., ii. 344.
Gillespie—

Opinion of, as to standing of members

of the church, i. 58.
Statement by, as to Presbyterian
views of relations of civil and eccle-
siastical authorities, i. 409.
Gnostics —

Opinions of the, as to the resurrec-
tion, i. 124, etc.
Opinions of the, as to Christ, i. 125,

etc.
Influence of the system of the, on the
views of the early church as to the
Trinity and the Ascetic institute, i.
129, etc.
The practice of the, as to authority of
Scripture, i. 131, etc.
GoMARUS, ii. 389, 435.
GooDE, i. 81, 185, 270.
Grace —

Views of the early church as to the

doctrines of, i. 179, etc., 183, etc.
Point at which corruption in the doc-
trines of, first began, i. 181.
Connection between doctrine of de-
pravity and that of divine, i. 344.
Doctrine of sovereign and efficacious,
i. 316, etc.

Grace —

Views of the early Pelagians as to the
nature of divine, i. 346-7.

Fundamental positions as to nature
and necessity of divine, i. 348.

Views and tendencies of those who
corrupt the Scripture doctrine of
divine, i. 349, etc.

Faith and the work of divine, i. 350.

Doctrine of Augustine as to irresisti-
bility of divine, i. 351-2.

Main questions to be considered in
connection with doctrine of sove-
reign and efficacious, i. 353, etc.

The doctrine of sacramental, ii. 121,
etc.

Efficacious and irresistible, ii. 405, etc.

Objections to the application of the
word irresistible to divine, ii. 40S,
etc.

Arminian and Calvinistic views of the
irresistibility of divine, ii. 410, etc.

The renovation of the will the special
operation of divine, not to be frus-
trated, ii. 413, etc.
Gratian —

The "Decree" of, the foundation of
the Canon Law, i. 428.

Origin and history of the Decree of, i.
427-9.

Substance and character of the Decree
of, i. 429.

Testimonies in the Decree of, to Pro-
testant and Presbyterian principles,
i. 432, etc. ; ii. 521.

Aim of, to exalt the Papacy, i. 434.
Grotius, i. 33; ii. 306, 565, 578.

Hallam, i. 489, 499.
Hampden, i. 424.
Henderson —

Opinion of, as to standing of members
of the church, i. 58.
Heresies —

The, of the apostolic age, i. 121, etc.
Meaning of, in the language of the

fathers, i. 121, etc.
Use of a laiowledge of the, of the early
church in the elucidation of Scrip-
ture, i. 124, etc., 129.
The, of the Docetas and Cerinthus, i.
125, etc.
Hermas—
Notice of, i. 911, etc.
The "Shepherd of," i. 96-7-
Quotation from the Shepherd of, on
government of church, i. 97.
Hooker, i. 401.

Idolatry —

Opinion and practice of the church of

INDEX.

601

Idolatry —

the first two centuries as to, i. 199,
etc., 359.

Doctrine and practice of, as charged
against the Popish Church, i. 359,
etc.

Historical statement as to the, charged
against Popish Church, i. 361, etc.

Doctrinal exposition of the subject of,
i. 370, etc.

Leading features of heathen, appli-
cable to that of the Church of Rome,
i. 371, etc.

Scriptural condemnation of, i. 373-4.

Sin and danger of the, of the Romish
Church, i. 387, etc.

Formal sanction of, in the Romish
Church before the Reformation, i.
465.
Ignatius—

Notice of, i. 108.

Genuineness and integrity of the epis-
tles of, i. 109, etc.

History of the controversy as to the
epistles of, i. 109, etc.

Evidence, external and internal, as
to the epistles of, i. Ill, etc., 114,
etc.

Arguments of Daille and Pearson as
to epistles of, i. 111-2, 114-6.

View of Neander as to epistles of, i.
112, etc., 116.

Opinion of Neander as to epistles of,
i. 112-3.

Opinion of Conybeare as to the senti-
ments of, i. 113-4.

Distinction between bishop and pres-
byter found in no writer of the first
two centuries, except in, i. 115,
etc.

Edition of the epistles of, by Cureton,
i. 117, etc.

Bearing of the epistles of, on the Pre-
latic controversy, i. 248, etc.
Images —

Worship of, i. 359.

Worship of, established by the Second
Council of Nice, i. 300, 362-3, 369.

Doctrine of Council of Trent on the
worship of, i. 361, etc.

Miracles wrought by, i. 364, etc.

Alleged misrepresentations by Protes-
tants of the Romish worship of, i.
367-8.

Alleged distinction between heathen
idolatry and the Popish worship of,
i. 371, etc.

Scriptural principles as to worship of
God opposed to worship of, i. 375,
etc.

Attempts by Romanists to evade the

Images —

scriptural arguments against the
worship of, i. 377, etc.

Fallacy of the arguments of Papists in
support of the worship of, as practi-
cally useful in religious service, i.
383.

Facts to be kept in view in order to
understand the doctrine and prac-
tice of Church of Rome in connec-
tion with the worship of saints and,
i. 385.
Imputation —

Doctrine of the, of Christ's righteous-
ness, ii. 45, etc.

Views of the Reformers and Roman-
ists as to, of Christ's righteousness,
ii. 45, etc.
Independency —

System of, ii. 545, etc.

Leading points in which, differs from
Prelacy and Presbyterianism, ii.
546, etc.

The system of, of modern origin, ii.
548.

Concessions by modern theological
authorities in favour of, ii. 649,
etc.

Positions maintained by Presbyterians
against, ii. 550, etc.
Independents —

Views of, as to Scripture sense of the
word church, i. 19.

Opinion of, as to Council of Jerusalem,
i. 44, etc.

Difference as to the government of the
church between Presbyterians and,
i. 53, etc.

Arguments of, as to subordination of
church courts, i. 60, etc.
Indulgences —

Popish doctrine of, ii. 94, etc.
Iren^eus —

Notice of, i. 139, etc.

Erroneous opinions and statements of,
i. 140, etc.

Share of, in the controversy as to the
observance of Easter, i. 144, etc.

Statement by, as to supremacy of the
Roman Church, i. 224.

Statement by, as to appointment of
Polycarp as Bishop of Smyrna, i.
255.

Jameson, i. 165, 252, 260.
Jansenius, i. 505, 521 ; ii. 375.
Jenkyn, Dr., ii. 358.
Jerusalem —

Council of, i. 43, etc.

Views of Presbyterians and Indepen-
dents as to Council of, i. 44, etc.

602

INDEX.

jERtrSALEM —

Decision of Council of, not dictated by
inspiration, i. 45, etc.

Lesson as to rule of church power
taught by Council of, i. 47.

Authority of church officers as illus-
trated by Council of, i. 50.

Place of church members as illustrated
by the Council of, i. 54.

Subordination of church courts as
taught by Council of, i. 59.

Obligation of apostolic practice as illus-
trated by Council of, i. 64, etc.

Divine right of a form of church go-
vernment as illustrated by Council
of, i. 73, etc.
JxjRiEU, i. 271 ; ii. 5.
Justification —

The doctrine of, ii. 1, etc.

Importance of the subject of, ii. 1-2.

Question between the Reformers and
Romanists under the head of, ii.
3-4, 19-20.

Opposite lines of policy pursued by
Romanists as to the views of Re-
formers on, ii. 4, 5.

Example of the Council of Trent modi-
fying the erroneous doctrine pre-
viously held by Church of Rome on,
ii. 6, etc.

Attempt by Le Blanc to extenuate
the difference between Romanists
and Protestants on subject of, ii. 8,
etc.

Popish and Protestant views of nature
of, ii. 10, etc.

Doctrine of the Reformers on nature
of, ii. 12, etc.

Doctrine of the Council of Trent on
nature of, ii. 13, 90, etc.

Misrepresentation of views of Calvin on
nature of, ii. 14-5.

Doctrine of Council of Trent as to re-
generation being included in, ii. 14-
16, etc.

Doctrine of Council of Trent as to the
ground or caiise of, ii. 16, etc.

Statements by Bellarmine and other
Romanists as to ground or cause of,
ii. 19.

Verbal differences among Protestants
in speaking of ground and cause of,
ii. 20, etc.

Doctrine of Reformers as to means of,
ii. 22, etc.

Views of Council of Trent as to means
of, ii. 23, etc.

Views of Romanists and Reformers as
to results of, ii. 28, etc.

Views of Romanists and Reformers as
to assurance of, ii. 30.

Justification —

Nature of, ii. 31, etc.

Scripture meaning of the word, ii. 31,
etc., 40.

Romanist positions as to Scripture
meaning of the word, ii. 34, etc.,
40.

Scripture passages usually selected by
Romanists in support of their mean-
ing of the word, ii. 36, etc.

Imperfect views of Augustine as to
nature of, ii. 41.

Importance of right views as to nature
of, ii. 42, etc.

Views of Romanists and Reformers as
to the righteousness which is the
ground of, ii. 45, etc.

Main reasons for asserting that the
righteousness of Christ is the ground
of, ii. 46, etc.

Both forgiveness and favour of God
included in, ii. 47, etc.

A perfect righteousness the only pos-
sible ground of, ii. 48.

Scripture evidence as to the righteous-
ness of Christ being the ground of,
ii. 51, etc.

The doctrine of, by faith alone, ii. 56,
etc.

Questions involved in the controversy
about, by faith alone, ii. 56-7.

Nature of the faith which is the instru-
ment of, ii. 57, etc.

The question whether, is by faith alone,
ii. 61, etc.

Exclusion of works from any co-opera-
tion with faith in, ii. 64, etc.

Reconciliation of Paul and James in
the question of, ii. 66, etc.

Office of faith in the matter of, ii. 68,
etc.

Different views entertained as to the
place and use of faith in, ii. 72, etc.

In what sense faith is a condition of,
ii. 74, etc.

Free grace in, ii. 77, etc.

Objections to the scriptural doctrine
of, ii. 79, etc.

Objection to the doctrine of, from its
alleged immoral tendency, ii. 80, etc.

Connection between, and sanctification
of a believer, ii. 82, etc.

The doctrine of, by faith furnishes the
strongest motives to holiness, ii. 86,
etc.

Influence of the doctrine of, by faith
iipon obedience, ii. 87, etc.

Doctrine of Papists as to a first and
second, ii. 103.

Practical tendency of the Popish doc-
trine of, ii. Ill, etc.

INDEX.

603

Justification —

Principal charges brought against the
Popish doctrine of, ii. 113, etc.

The Popish system of, in connection
with the tendencies of human na-
ture, ii. 115, etc.
JiTSTiN Martyr —

Notice of, i. 134.

Importance of the works of, i. 1.34, etc.

The genuineness and the character of
the works of, i. 135, etc.

Erroneous views of, i. 136-7.

Account by, of the worship of the
Christian church, i. 138.

Quotation from, on the Lord's Supper,
i. 139.

King, Archbishop, ii. 447.
Knapp, ii. 240.
Knox, ii. 574.

Lanfranc, i. 414.
Larroque, i. Ill, 114, 249.
Lateran —

Fourth Council of, regarded by Ro-
manists as oecumenical, i. 467.
Transubstantiation and confession for-
mally sanctioned by the Fourth
Council of, i. 467-8.
Le Blanc, ii. 8, 9, 36, 39.
Limborch, ii. 302, 308, 309, 361, 400,

469.
Lombard —
The Four Books of Sentences by, i.

413, 416.
Character and objects of the writings

of, i. 421-2.
Testimony by, to Presbyterian prin-
ciples, i. 422-3, 432 ; ii. 521.
Luther—

Statement by, as to character of the

Canon Law, i. 434.
Distinctive work done by, at the time

of the Reformation, i. 542, etc.
Views of, as to sinfulness of works
done before regeneration, i. 545,
550, etc.
Rash statements, and subsequent
modifications of them, by, as to
bondage of the will, i. 575.
Views of, as to church government, ii.

518, etc.
Views of, as to authority of civil
magistrates about religion, ii. 567.

M'Crie, Dr., i. 411.
Magdeburgh Centuriators—

Work on Church History by, i. 37.

Views of, as to apostolic origin of
Apostles' Creed, i. 81.
Mastricht, ii. 76, 306.

Melancthon —

Statement by, as to improvement of
Popish Church since commence-
ment of Reformation, i. 478.

Rash statements, and subsequent
modification of them by, as to
bondage of the will, i. 573.

Countenance given by, to the error of
the Synergists, i. 618.

Rash statement by, as to the connec-
tion between God's agency and
man's sin, i. 628.

Apprehensions entertained by, as to
the power of the civil magistrate in
connection with the church, ii. 567.
Milner, i. 164.
Ministry —

Popish and Protestant views as to the
church and the, i. 27, etc.

Distinction between a regular and a
valid, i. 31, etc.

Apostolical succession in the, i. 32.

MOEHLER

Mistake by, as to the doctrines for-
mally held to be binding by Romish
Church, i. 485.

MONTANISTS—

Opinions and practice of the, i. 161, etc.
Reproduction of the leading features
of the system of the, in recent times,
i. 162.
MoRELLius, ii. 543, 544, 548, 570.
MORNAEUS, i. 441.
MOSHEIM —

Assertion of, as to Scripture sense of

word church, i. 20.
Opinion of, as to Scripture sanction of

church government, i. 77.
Statement of, as to origin of Apostles'

Creed, i. 80.
Views of, as to integrity of Epistle of

Clemens, i. 99.
Description by, of the treatment of

Scripture by Manichasans and

Gnostics, i. 131, etc., 143, 161, 224.

Neander —

Opinion of, as to integrity of Epistle of
Clemens, i. 100.

Opinion of, as to Epistleg of Ignatius,
i. 112-3, 116.
Nestorian — •

Notice of the, controversy, i. 315, etc.

Practical use to be made of a study of
the, heresy, i. 319.
Newman, Dr. —

Development theory of, i. 40, etc.

Views of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 80,
86, 88.

Statement of, as to meaning of justi-
fication, ii. 34.

604

INDEX.

Nice —

Creed of tlie Council of, i. 279, etc.

Image-worship established by the
Second Council of, i. 360, 362-3,
369, 465.

History and character of the Second
Council of, i. 362, etc.

Difficulties of Eomanists arising out
of the controversies connected with
the Second Council of, i. 365-6.

Condemnation of decisions of Second
Council of, by Council of Frank-
fort, i. 366.

NiCENE CeEED —

Notice of the, i. 279.

Arian positions condemned in the, i.
280, etc.

Meaning of consubstantiality as pre-
dicated of the Father and Son in the,
i. 281, 283.

The language of the, an accurate ex-
pression of the scrijjtural doctrine,
i. 284, etc.

The propriety of making the doctrines
of the, a test of orthodoxy, i. 286,
etc., 290.

Dislike of Arius and his followers to
the language of the, i. 287, etc.

Difference between the language of
the, and that of Arians, i. 289,
etc.

Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship in
the, i. 293, etc., 296.

Doctrine of the procession of the Spirit
in the, i. 305, etc.

NOVATIAK —

Schism and opinions of, i. 165, etc.

Owen, Dr. —

Statement by, as to the place and use

of faith in justification, ii. 72, etc.
Origen —

Notice of, i. 154, etc.

Erroneous opinions taught by, i. 154,

etc.
The theology of, akin to Pelagianism,

i. 156, etc.
Statement by, as to supremacy of

Bishop of Rome, i. 223.

Paley, ii. 151.
Pallavicino, i. 490.
Papists —

Definition of church given by, i. 10,

etc.
Views of indefectibility and infalli-
bility of church as held by, i. 10-18.
Doctrine of, as to notes of the church,

i. 21, etc.
Views of, as to the ministry and the
church, i. 27, etc.

Papists —

Views of, as to a regular ministry, i.

32.
Views of, as to history of the church,

i. 35, etc.
Views of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 85,

etc.
Professed deference of, to authority

of the fathers, i. 196.
Unfair methods employed by, in deal-
ing with the testimony of the fathers,

i. 197, etc.
Theory of development had recourse

to by, in defence of their doctrines,

i. 208-9.
Complaints by, as to Protestant mis-
representation of Romish worship of

saints and images, i. 367, etc.
Attempts by, to evade the scriptural

argument against image and saint

worship, i. 377, etc.
Fallacy of the arguments of, in sup-
port of the worship of saints, i. 379,

etc.
Fallacy of the arguments of, as to

practical utility of images in reli-
gious service, i. 383.
Allegation by, as to the unlikelihood of

the church falling into idolatry, i.

386.
Views of, as to relations of the civil

and ecclesiastical powers, i. 402,

etc., 407, etc.
Claim put forth by, as to the unbroken

maintenance of apostolical doctrine

and practice in the Church of Rome,

i. 439-41.
Allegations of, as to perpetuity and

visibility of the church, i. 446.
Claims of, in opposition to tho^e of

the Greek Church, i. 447, etc.
Leading positions held by, as to Wal-

denses and Albigenses, i. 453, etc.
Views of, and Protestants as to the

fall, i. 496.
Views of, as to original righteousness,

i. 518.
Views of, as to corruption of man's

nature, i. 529, etc.
Doctrine of, as to non-sinfulness of

concupiscence, i. 536, etc.
Practical danger of the views of, as

to fall, i. 540, etc.
Views of, as to sinfulness of works

done before regeneration, i. 549, etc.
Charges by, against the Reformers,

that they made God the author of

sin, i. 628, etc.
Question between, and Reformers

under the head of justification, ii.

3, 4, 19-28.

INDEX.

605

Papists —

Views of, and Protestants as to doc-
trine of justification, ii. 10, etc.

Views of, as to nature of justification,
ii. 13, etc.

Views of, as to ground or cause of
justification, ii. 16, etc., 50, etc.

Views of, as to means of justification,
ii. 23, etc.

Views of, as to faith, ii. 27, etc.

Views of, as to results of justification,
ii. 28, etc.

Views of, as to Scripture meaning of
justification, ii. 34, etc., 40.

Scripture passages adduced by, in sup-
port of their view as to meaning of
justification, ii. 36, etc.

Doctrine of, as to sacrament of pen-
ance, ii. 92, etc.

Controversial policy of, in arguing in
support of their system, ii. 96.

Doctrine of, as to penal inflictions on
justified men, ii. 97, etc.

Views of, as to temporal punishment
of sin, ii. 99, etc.

Doctrine of, as to good works, ii. 101,
etc.

Practical tendency and effect of the
doctrine of, as to the sacraments, ii.
139, etc.

Views of, as to church government,
ii. 519.
Paul, Father, i. 481, 489, 490, 492,

499, 533 ; ii. 519.
Paul, of Samosata —

Socinian doctrine as to nature of
Christ promulgated by, about the
middle of the third century, i. 275.
Payne, Dr., i. 521, 522, 523, 524, 526.
Pearson, Bishop —

Defence of Epistles of Ignatius by, i.
110, etc., 114.

Argument by, as to early church at
Philippi in the Prelatic contro-
versy, i. 248.
Pelagian —

The church of first two centuries did
not hold, views, i. 180, 325.

Notice of the, controversy, i. 321, etc.

Character and subjects of the, contro-
versy, i. 321, etc.

Use and application of the word, i.
323.

Historical statement as to the, con-
troversy, i. 324, etc.

Founders and early history of the,
heresy, i. 327, etc.

Doctrines of the, system, i. 329, 333.

Semi - Pelagianism an intermediate
scheme between Augustinianism and
the, system, i. 330.

Pelagian —
Views of the early advocates of the,

system as to divine grace, i. 346-7.
Irresistibility of divine grace denied

by all advocates of the, system, i.

351, etc.
Errors of the, system formally con-
demned, but practically prevalent,

before the Reformation, i. 474-5-9.
Tendency of the scholastic theology

to, error, i. 475-6.
Prevalence of, errors before the Re-
formation, i. 476-9.
Canons of the Council of Trent against,

errors, i. 568, etc.
Penance —
Forgiveness of post - baptismal sin

through sacrament of, ii. 91, etc.
Doctrine of Romanists as to absolu-
tion through sacrament of, ii. 92,

etc.
Persecution in Religion —
Erroneous views of the Reformers on

the question of, ii. 561, etc.
Beza's defence of, ii. 564.
Views of Grotius in favour of, ii. 565.
Perseverance of Saints —

Doctrine of the, i. 355, etc.; ii. 490,

etc.
Views of Augustine on the doctrine

of the, i. 356, etc. ; ii. 490.
Views of Arminius and the early Ar-

minians on the doctrine of the, i.

358; ii. 384, etc., 490, etc.
Doctrine of the Westminster Confes-
sion as to the, ii. 491, 501.
Views of some Lutheran divines as to

the, ii. 492.
Arminian objections to Calvinism in

connection with the doctrine of the,

ii. 494, etc.
Scripture evidence for the, ii. 497,

etc.
Petavius —

Opinion of, as to testimony of the

early church on Trinity, i. 269.
PiGHius, i. 572.
Polycarp —
Notice of, i. 105.
Epistle to the church at Philippi by,

i. 105, etc.
Part taken by, in the controversy

about the celebration of Easter, i.

143, etc.
Epistle by, in its bearing upon the

Prelatic controversy, i. 247, etc.
Statement by Irenosus in relation to

appointment of Bishop of Smyrna,

i. 255.
Pope —
Supremacy of the, not sanctioned by

606

INDEX.

Pope —

opinions of tlie early church, i. 207,
etc.

Differences in opinion among Ro-
manists as to supremacy of the, i.
211, etc.

The Council of Florence on the su-
premacy of the, i. 212, 469.

Statement by Bellarmine as to the
supremacy of the, i. 212-.S.

Grounds on which the claim to supre-
macy by the, is based, i. 213, etc.

No foundation in Scripture for the
doctrine of the supremacy of the, i.
214, etc.

Argument of Bellarmine in favour of
supremacy of the, and defects in it,
i. 216, etc., 221, etc.

Testimony of the early church in the
question of the supremacy of the, i.
221, etc., 225.

Difficulties of the defenders of the in-
fallibility of the, in connection with
early history of the Pelagian contro-
versy, i. 328.

Explanations by Bossuet as to supre-
macy of the, asserted by Council of
Florence, i. 470.
Popery —

Importance to, of the theory adopted
as to church history, i. 38.

Church history to a large extent the
history of, i. 41.

The great mass of the doctrines and
practice of, has no warrant from
early church, i. 207, etc.

What is, and what is not, to be re-
garded as, i. 228, etc.

Claims on behalf of, to an unbroken
apostolical succession, i. 439-41.

Leading positions held by Protestants
in opposition to the claims of, to an
unbroken apostolical succession, i.
442, etc.

Statement by Field as to the late intro-
duction of the corruptions of, i. 444.
Predestination —

State of the question in the contro-
versy as to, ii. 430, etc.

No more than two alternatives, the
Calvinistic or the Arminian, in the
controversy as to, ii. 431.

Difference between the Arminian and
the Socinian views as to, ii. 434.

Difference between the supralapsa-
rians and the sublapsarians as to,
ii. 435.

Real points in dispute in the contro-
versy as to, ii. 436-8.

Connection between the doctrine of,
and that of the fall, ii. 439, etc.

Predestination —

Connection between doctrine of, and
that of the omniscience of God, ii.
441, etc.

Arminian distinction between fore-
knowledge and fore-ordination in
the controversy as to, ii. 444.

Arminian tendency to deny or explain
away the omniscience of God in
connection with the controversy as
to, ii. 446, etc.

Arminian attempt to answer the argu-
ments for, by alleging that our
knowledge of God is analogical, ii.
447, etc.

Connection between the doctrine of,
and the sovereignty of God, ii. 449.

Distinctions as to the will of God in
the question of, ii. 451, etc.

Arminian view of the will of God in
the question of, ii. 454, etc.

Scripture evidence for, ii. 459, etc.

Scripture language proving, ii. 462, etc.

Positions necessary to be established
in discussing the Scripture evidence
for, ii. 463-4, etc.

Ninth chapter of Romans in connec-
tion with Scripture evidence for, ii.
467, etc.

Objections against, ii. 472, etc.

Arminian objections against, derived
from Scripture, not more than in-
ferential, ii. 473, etc.

Irrelevant objections against, ii. 476,
etc.

Objections against, founded on mis-
statements of Calvinistic principles,
ii. 477-8.

Objections against, because of its
alleged inconsistency with charac-
ter of God and responsibility of
man, ii. 478, etc.

Arminian objections against, not suf-
ficient to disprove it, ii. 479, etc.

Arminian objections against, directed
equally against the doings as the
decrees of God, ii. 482, etc.

Arminian objections against, cannot
prove it to be inconsistent with per-
fections of God or responsibilities of
man, ii. 484, etc.

Arminian objections against, involve
no difficulties peculiar to the Cal-
vinistic system, ii. 487, etc.
Prelacy —

Origin and character of, i. 227, etc.,
230, etc.

State of the question in the contro-
versy as to, i. 232, etc., 234, etc., 239.

The onus prohandi in the controversy
as to, i. 237, 244.

INDEX.

607

Prelacy —
Views of Usher and others on, i. 238.
Admission made by Episcopalians of
the absence of scriptural evidence
for, i. 239.
Irrelevancy of some of the arguments

urged in favour of, i. 240.
Examination of the leading arguments

in favour of, i. 240, etc.
Argument from antiquity in favour of,

i. 244.
Case of the early church of Corinth in
its bearing on the argument as to,
i. 245, etc.
Case of the early church of Philippi in
its bearing on the controversy as to,
i. 247, etc.
The bearing of the Letters of Ignatius

on the argument as to, i. 248, etc.
The distinction between bishops and
presbyters in the system of, had no
existence before the middle of second
century, i. 250-1.
Misrepresentation by advocates of, as
to its early existence in church, i.
251-2.
Testimony of Cyprian in relation to,

i. 252, etc.
Argument in support of, from the
early mention and catalogues of in-
dividuals as local bishops, i. 254,
etc.
Substance of the historical facts as to
. early existence of, i. 256, etc.
Explanation of the origin and progress
of, in the church, i. 258, etc., 262,
etc.
Unfair practice of Episcopalians in
arguing as to early prevalence of, i.
259, etc.
Fallacy of reasoning by Chillingworth
founded on early growth of, i. 261,
etc.
Attempts by defenders of, to account
for the scriptural identity of bishop
and presbyter, i. 263, etc.
Charges to be brought against the sys-
tem of, i. 264, etc.
Peesbyterianism —

Scriptural form of church government

was substantially, i. 74, etc.
Testimony in writings of Peter Lom-
bard to, i. 422-3, 432.
Testimonies in the Canon Law to, i.

432, etc.
Doctrine of, as to church government,

ii. 514.
Testimony of the Reformers as to, ii.

525, etc.
Differences between Independency and,
ii. 546, etc.

Presbyter ianism —

Positions maintained by the adherents
of, against Independency, ii. 550, etc.
Presbyterians —

Views of, as to Council of Jerusalem,
i. 44, etc.

Difference as to government of the
church between Independents and,
i. 53.

Views of, as to standing of churc
officers and members in the govern-
ment of church, i. 56, etc.

Views of, as to subordination of church
courts, i. 59, etc.

Views of, as to relations of civil and
ecclesiastical authorities, i. 395, 406.

Views of, as to church government, ii.
514, etc.
Priestley, ii. 189.
Protestants —

Definition of church given by, i. 10, etc.

Indefectibility of church as held by, i.
16-18.

Notes of the church as explained by,
i. 23, etc.

Views of, as to the church and the
ministry, i. 27, etc.

Views of, as to history of the church,
i. 35, etc.

Leading positions held by, in opposi-
tion to the claims of Popery to an
unbroken apostolical succession, i.
442, etc., 446, 450.

Views of some, as to uninterrupted
existence of a visible church, i. 451,
etc.

Opinions of, as to original righteous-
ness, i. 519, etc.

Views of, as to corruption of man's
nature, i. 529, etc.

Views of, as to good works, ii. 104, etc.

Quakers, ii. 129.
QuESNEL, i. 577.

Racovian Catechism, ii. 177-8, 180, 184.
Reformation —

The church at the era of the, i. 459,
etc.

State of doctrine at the time of the, i.
463, etc.

Doctrinal errors formally sanctioned
by the church before the, i. 464, etc.

Doctrinal errors not formally sanc-
tioned, but generally taught, by the
church before the, i. 473, etc.

Prevalence of Pelagian error at the
time of the, i. 476-9.
Reformers —

Views of, as to the church and the
ministry, i. 27, etc.

608

INDEX.

Reformers —

Distinction between a regular and a
valid ministry as held by, i. 31, etc.

Views of, as to an apostolical succes-
sion in ministry, i. 32.

Positions maintained by, as to original
sin, i. 543-4.

Doctrine taught by, as to sinfulness of
works done after regeneration, i.
558.

Views of the, on the will, i. 570, etc.,
577, etc.

Doctrine of the, as to the passivity of
the will in regeneration, i. G16.

Doctrine of the, as to the will after
regeneration, i. 623.

Defence by the, against the charge of
making God the author of sin, i. 630,
etc.

Question between the, and the Ro-
manists under the head of justifica-
tion, ii. 3-4, 10-20.

Doctrine of the, on the nature of jus-
tification, ii. 12, etc.

Doctrine of, on the means of justifica-
tion, ii. 22, etc.

Doctrine of, as to results of justifica-
tion, ii. 28, etc.

Testimony of, as to the question of
church government, ii. 525, etc.

Unfounded allegations of Prelatists as
to opinion of, on the subject of
church government, ii. 529.

Views of, as to popular election of
office-bearers in the church, ii. 538,
etc.

Views of the, in connection with the
Erastian system, ii. 558, etc.
Regeneration —

Popish doctrine as to, by baptism, i.
540.

Sinfulness of works done before, i. 542,
etc.

Council of Trent on sinfulness of works
done before, i. 545.

Statement by Luther as to sinfulness
of works done before, i. 545, etc.

Doctrine taught by Church of England
as to sinfulness of works done before,
i. 546.

Doctrine of Westminster Confession as
to sinfulness of works done before,
i. 547.

Scripture doctrine as to sinfulness of
works done before, i. 548, etc.

Views of Romanists as to sinfulness of
works done before, i. 549, etc.

Views of Calvin and Luther as to sin-
fulness of works done before, i. 550,
etc.

Statements by Dr. Chalmers as to

Regeneration —

sinfulness of works done before, i.
553.

Sinfulness of works done after, i. 554,
etc.

The Council of Trent on sinfulness of
works done after, i. 555.

Romish misrepresentations of the Pro-
testant doctrine of sinfulness of works
done after, i. 556, etc.

Positions maintained by Reformers as
to sinfulness of worke done after, i.
558.

Scripture teaching as to sinfulness of
works done after, i. 559.

Arguments of Bellarmine on Scripture
statements as to sinfulness of works
done after, i. 560, etc.

Scripture evidence as to sinfulness of
works done after, i. 561, etc.

The will in, i. 613, etc., 620, etc., 621 ;
ii. 411.

The doctrine of baptismal, ii. 133, etc.

Scripture evidence as to baptismal, ii.
135.

Divine grace in, not inconsistent with
the nature of the human will, ii. 414,
etc.
Righteousness —

Doctrine of original, i. 516, etc.

Views of Romanists as to original, i.
517, etc.

Decree of Council of Trent as to origi-
nal, i. 518.

Views of Protestants as to original, i.
519, etc.

Infused or imputed, the question be-
tween Romanists and Protestants,
ii. 19, etc., 46.

Imputation of the, of Christ, ii. 45, etc.

Views of Reformers and Romanists as
to imputation of, as a ground of jus-
tification, ii. 45, etc., 50, etc.

Passive and active, ii. 45-0, 54, etc.

Main reasons for asserting that the
ground of justification is the, of
Christ imputed, ii. 46, etc.

A perfect, the only possible ground of
justification, ii. 47-8.

Scripture evidence as to the, of Christ
being the ground of justification, ii.
51, etc.

The, of Christ not fictitious, but a
reality, ii. 55.

Faith the instrument of receiving the,
of Christ, ii. 70, etc.
Rivet, ii. 380.

RUFINUS —

Statement of, as to Apostles' Creed,
i. 82.
Rule, i. 165.

INDEX.

609

Sabellianism —

Doctrine of, i. 272, etc.

Principles of, never professed except
by individuals, either in the early or
later church, i. 272, etc.
Sacramental —

The, principle, ii. 121, etc.

The doctrine of, grace, ii. 121, etc.

The contrast betw^een the Jewish and
Christian dispensation in its bearing
upon the doctrine of, grace, ii. 129.
Sacraments —

Doctrine and practice of the early
church as to the, i. 201, etc.

First step in the progress of error in
the early church as to the, i. 203.

Doctrine of the, as corrupted by the
Council of Trent, i. 482 ; ii. 122, etc.

Doctrine of the Tractarians as to the,
ii. 123, etc., 131, etc.

Views of Papists and Protestants as to
the, ii. 124, etc., 131, etc., 134.

Adult participation in the, the case
usually contemplated in speaking of
them, ii. 125, etc., 144.

Description by Westminster Confes-
sion of the, ii. 127, 135.

Information given in Scripture as to
the, ii. 130, etc.

The necessity of the, ii. 131-2.

Doctrine of the opus operatum in the,
ii. 134, 138.

Practical tendency and effect of the
Romish doctrine of the, ii. 139, etc.
Sage, i. 165.
Saints —

Worship of, i. 359, etc.

Doctrine of the Council of Trent on
worship of, i. .361, etc.

Alleged misrepresentations by Pro-
testants of the Romish worship of,
i. 367.

Alleged distinctions between heathen
idolatry and the Popish worship of,
i. 371, etc.

Scriptural principles as to religious
worship opposed to worship of, i.
375, etc.

Attempts by Romanists to evade the
scriptural argument against the
worship of, i. 377, etc.

Fallacy of the arguments of Romanists
in support of the worship of, i. 379,
etc.

Facts necessary to the full understand-
ing of the doctrine and practice of
Popery in connection w^th the wor-
ship of images and, i. 385.
Salmasius, i. 249, 251, 252.
Satisfaction —

Human, for sin, ii. 93, etc.
3 — VOL. II.

Scholastic Theology —
Account of the, i. 413, etc.
Origin and history of the, i. 413-4.
Leading defects of the, i. 414, etc.
Uses of the study of the, i. 417, etc.
Authors of the, adduced as witnesses

against Popery, i. 419-21.
Lombard's Book of Sentences the foun-
dation and text-book of the, i. 421.
Influence of Thomas Aquinas on, i.

423.
Bampton Lectures of Dr. Hampden

on the, i. 424-5.
Tendency of the, to Pelagian errors, i,

475, etc.
ScoTus, i. 414.
Scripture —
Rule for church power is the, i. 47, etc.
Use of a knowledge of the heresies of

the early church in the elucidation

of, i. 124, etc.
Methods used both in ancient and

modern times for setting aside the

authority of the, i. 131.
Authority of the fathers in relation to

the interpretation of the, i. 172, etc.
Views of the early church as to suffi-
ciency of, i. 184, etc.
Socinian views as to, ii. 160, etc.
Socinian principles of interpretation

for, ii. 163, etc.
Socinian method of dealing with, ii.

164, etc.
Sherlock, ii. 202.
Sin —
God's providence and man's, i. 625,

etc.
The question of the cause or origin of,

i. 625, etc.
God's agency in connection with, i,

626, etc., 630, etc.
Charges brought by Romanists against

the Reformers that they made God

the author of, i. 628, etc.
Defence by the Reformers against the

charge of making God the author of,

i. 630.
Permission of, not the whole of the

connection of God with it, i. 632,

etc.
Calvin's statement as to God's per-
mission of, i. 632-3.
Statement by the Westminster Con-
fession as to the agency of God in

connection with, i. 633.
Scripture statements as to agency of

God in connection with, i. 635.
Forgiveness of post-baptismal, ii. 90,

etc.
Forgiveness of post-baptismal, through
sacrament of penance, ii. 91, etc.

2 Q

610

INDEX.

Sin—

Human satisfaction for, ii. 93, etc.,
100, etc.

Sufferings of justified men not penal
inflictions for, ii. 97, etc.

Views of Papists as to temporal pun-
ishment of, ii. 99, 102.

Connection between death of Christ
and forgiveness of, ii. 244, etc., 281.

Necessity of an atonement in order to
the forgiveness of, ii. 249, etc.

Aspect in which, is to be regarded in
the question of the possibility of
pardoning it, ii. 259.

Indispensable condition of any provi-
sion made for the pardon of, ii. 264,
etc.

Perfections of God do not necessarily
lead to the pardon of, ii. 268.

The fall of angels an evidence that
God does not indiscriminately par-
don, ii. 268.

Full provision made in the atonement
for the glory of God when pardon-
ing, ii. 269.

Three leading views as to whether or
not Christ suffered the penalty of,
ii. 305, etc.
Sin, Original —

Doctrine of, i. 333, etc.

Error as to, formally sanctioned by
Council of Trent, i. 480, 519.

Meaning of the phrase, i. 496.

Popish and Protestant views of the
doctrine of, i. 496, etc.

Views of Dr. Payne as to, i. 521, etc.

Similarity between Dr. Payne's views
and those of Komanists as to, i. 523,
etc., 526.

Insufficiency of Dr. Payne's views as
an explanation of, i. 525.

General view suggested to answer ob-
jections to doctrine of, i. 527.

Positions maintained by the Keformers
as to, i. 543-4.

The question of, in connection with
the five points of the Arminian
system, ii. 386, etc.

Views of Arminians as to, ii. 388, etc.

Common Arminian method of discuss-
ing the subject of, and divine grace,
ii. 390.
Smith, Dr. Pye, ii. 216, 291.

SOCINIAN —

The, doctrine not professed by the
early church, i. 274.

Individuals who first avowed, princi-
ples, i. 273.

The, controversy, ii. 155, etc.

Origin of the, system, ii. 156, etc.

The, views as to Scripture, ii. 160, etc.

SOCINIAN —
The, principles of Scripture interpreta-
tion, ii. 163, etc.
The, method of dealing with Scripture,

ii. 164, etc.
The, system of theology, ii. 168, etc.
The, theology not negative, but posi-
tive, ii. 169.
The comprehensive nature of the,

system, ii. 170, etc.
The, view of the divine goodness, ii.

172.
The, view of the divine omniscience,

ii. 173.
The, view of the fall and man's moral

character, ii. 175, etc.
The, view of Christ and His work, ii.

176, etc.
The, view of moral duty, ii. 179, etc.
The, view as to eschatology, ii. 181.
The, view as to the church, ii. 182.
Reflection suggested by the, system of

theology, ii. 183, etc.
The, system natural to fallen man, ii.

185, etc.
The original and more recent, systems,

ii. 188, etc.
Character of the modem, theology, ii.

191, etc.
Usual method of dealing with the

evidence for the divinity of Christ,

ii. 219, etc.
Considerations fitted to meet the,

method of dealing with the evidence

for divinity of Christ, ii. 222, etc.
The, view of Christ as merely a pro-
phet, ii. 242.
The, denial of the necessity of atone-
ment, ii. 251, etc.
The, view of the atonement, ii. 293,

etc.
The, system in relation to Arminianism

and Calvinism, ii. 501.
Remarks suggested by a review of the

Calvinistic, Arminian, and, systems,

ii. 502, etc.
SociNus, Faustus, ii. 157, 188, 248.
SociNus, L^Lius, ii. 157, 158.
SoNSHiP, Eternal —
Doctrine of the, i. 293, etc., 296.
Assertion of the doctrine of the, in

Nicene Creed, i. 295.
Motives that have led some to reject

the doctrine of the, i. 297.
The objections to the doctrine of the,

and the fallacy of them, i. 299,

etc.
Idea of filiation derived from the truth

of the, i. 301.
Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of,

i. 302, etc.

INDEX.

611

Spirit —

Doctrine of the procession of the, i.
305, etc.
Staffer, ii. 377.
Stuart, Moses, i. 298, 302.
Sumner, ii. 466.
Supper —

Doctrine of the early church as to the
Lord's, i. 205.

Popish view of the Lord's, ii. 142, etc.

Taylor, Isaac, i. 41, 130, 359.
Tertullian —

Notice of, i. 158, etc.

General character of the system of

doctrine taught by, i. 159.
Erroneous views held by, i. 160.
Adherence of, to the sect of the Mon-
tanists, i. 161.
Theodotus—

Socinian views of the nature of Christ
first taught by, i. 275. •

Tholuck, ii. 201.

TiLLOTSON —

Character given by, of the Second
Council of Nice, i. 362.
Tradition—

Views of the early church as to, i. 186,
etc.

Authority of, put on a level with Scrip-
ture by Council of Trent, i. 480.
Transubstantiation —

Opinions of the early church as to, i.
205, etc.

Fourth Council of Lateran formally
sanctioned the doctrine of, i. 467.
Treffry, i. 302, 303.
Trent, Council of —

Canons of the, on the subject of Pre-
lacy, i. 231.

Decision of, on the worship of saints
and images, i. 361, etc., 368, 380, 465.

Confession sanctioned by, i. 467-8.

Transubstantiation confirmed by, i.
468.

Supremacy of the Pope as taught by,
i. 469.

Objects aimed at in the, i. 478.

Doctrinal errors previously prevalent,
but not formally sanctioned by the
church, officially affirmed by, i. 479,
etc.

Tradition and ecclesiastical authority
sanctioned by decision of, i. 480.

Error as to original sin formally as-
serted by, i. 480.

Doctrine of justification as misrepre-
sented by, i. 480-1.

Doctrine of the sacraments as corrupted
by, i. 482 ; ii. 122.

Notice of the, i. 483, etc.

Trent, Council of—

Authority of the, in the Romish
Church, i. 484, etc.

Other authorities than the, binding in
Romish Church, i. 485, etc.

Title assumed to itself by the, i. 486.

Number of members attending, i. 487.

Character of the, i. 488, etc.

Statements by Hallam as to the, i. 489.

Position generally taken up by Pro-
testants as to the character and
authority of, i. 491.

Account by Father Paul of the discus-
sions in, i. 492.

General objects aimed at by the, i. 493.

Character of the decrees and canons of
the, i. 494.

Decree of the, as to the fall, i. 498, etc. ,
503, 505, 531.

Decree of the, as to original righteous-
ness, i. 518.

Decree of the, as to concupiscence, i.
532.

Doctrine of the, as to sinfulness of
works done before regeneration, i.
545.

Doctrine of the, as to sinfulness of
works done after regeneration, i. 555.

Canons of the, against the Pelagians,
i. 568, etc.

Doctrine of the, as to the freedom of
the will, i. 571, etc.

Doctrine of the, as to the will in re-
generation, i. 615.

Modification by, of the erroneous doc-
trine previously held by Church of
Rome on justification, ii. 6, etc.

Doctrine of, on subject of justification,
ii. 13, etc.

Doctrine of, as to regeneration being
included in justification, ii. 14-16,
etc.

Doctrine of, as to ground or cause of
justification, ii. 16, etc.

Views of, as to means of justification,
ii. 23, etc.

Views of, as to results of justification,
ii. 29.

Views of, as to assurance of justifica-
tion, ii. 30.

Views of, as to church government, ii.
519, etc.
Trinity —

Influence of Gnosticism on the views of
the early church as to the, i. 129.

The doctrine of the, i. 267, etc.

Testimony of the early church on the,
i. 267, etc.

Importance of the views of the early
church on the, i. 260, etc.

Influences aff'ecting the beliefs of par-

612

INDEX.

Trinity —

ties as to doctrine of the early

church on the, i. 269, etc.
Views of different parties as to the

opinions of the early church con-
cerning the, i. 269.
Position taken by opponents of the, as

to the testimony of the early church

on the subject of the, i. 272, etc.
Sabellianism not the view of the early

church on the subject of the, i. 273,

etc.
The Socinian heresy as to the, has no

support in the opinions of the early

church, i. 274, etc.
Bishop Bull's attempts to explain the

opinions of the early church on, i.

277, etc.
Assertion of the doctrine of the, in the

Nicene Creed, i. 280, etc.
The language of the Nicene Creed an

accurate expression of the doctrine

of the, i. 284, etc.
The propriety of making the doctrine

of the, as embodied in the Nicene

Creed, a test of orthodoxy, i. 286,

etc.
Distinction of persons asserted in the

doctrine of the, i. 293, etc. ; ii. 192.
Status qucestionis in the controversy

as to the, ii. 194.
Meaning of the word person as ap-
plied to the distinctions asserted in

the doctrine of the, ii. 195-198, etc.,

206, 210.
Scriptural positions as to the, to be

alike, and equally held and ex-
pressed, ii. 197, etc.
Nature of distinctions asserted in the

doctrine of the, not to be defined,

but not to be rejected, ii. 199.
Statement of Westminster Confession

as to, ii. 200.
Doctrine of, does not legitimately lead

to Tritheism or Sabellianism, ii. 200,

etc.
The doctrine of a, and Unity, ii. 203.
Alleged contradiction in the doctrine

of the, ii. 204, etc.
Principles of reasoning to be applied to

the discussion of the doctrine of the,

ii. 205.
The doctrine of, not self-contradictory,

and not inconsistent with unity in

the Godhead, ii. 206, etc., 210, etc.
Danger of unwarranted explanations

as to doctrine of the, ii. 207, etc.
Scripture evidence bearing on the

doctrine of the, in general, ii. 215,

TuRRETiNE, i. 419, 519, 573, 591, 605,

TURRETINE —

610; ii. 7, 20, 55, 71, 74, 306, 341,
363, 435, 500, 537.
TwissE, Dr., i. 510; ii. 435.

Usher, Archbishop —

Views of, on Prelacy, i. 238.

Valla, Laurentius —

View of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 85.
Victor (Bishop of Rome) —

Part taken by, in the controversy about
the celebration of Easter, i. 144, etc.
Voluntaryism —

The system of, i. 390, etc.

Insufficiency of the arguments used in
support of the theory of, i. 392-3.

Inaccurate use of the word, ii. 560.
Vossius, i. 110, 118.

Waddington, i. 193, 245.
Wake, i. 116, 245; ii. 4.
Waldenses —

Notice of the, i. 450, etc.
Opposite views of Papists and Pro-
testants as to a visible church in
their application to the Albigenses
and, i. 451, etc.
Positions maintained by Papists as to
Albigenses and, i. 453, etc.
Waldo, i. 453, 456.
Wallis, Dr., ii. 202.
Wardlaw, Dr., ii. 358, 364, 365.
Wegscheider, i. 506 ; ii. 463.
Wesley, i. 358; ii. 375, 388, 478.
Westminster Confession of Faith —
Definition of church given by, i. 12.
Definition of visible church given by,

i. 18.
Doctrine of, as to the gift of the
ministry, etc. , to the visible church,
i. 27.
Doctrine of, as to authority of coun-
cils, i. 53 ; ii. 383.
Doctrine of, as to what in the worship
and government of the church is to
be ordered by light of nature, i. 68,
72.
Statement by, as to Trinity, i. 294,

295 ; ii. 200.
Statement by, as to the person of

Christ, i. 311, 313, 314, 317.
Statement by, as to liberty of will, i.

325, 572, 578.
Doctrine of, as to extent of human de-
pravity, i. 343.
View of, as to bondage of the will,

i. 344-5, 586, 608.
Statement by, as to civil magistrate

and religion, i. 410, 411, 436.
Doctrine of, as to concupiscence, i. 532.

INDEX.

613

Westminster Confession of Faith —

Doctrine of, as to sinfulness of works
done before regeneration, i. 547.

Doctrine of the, as to the will in re-
generation, i. 617.

Doctrine of the, as to the will after
regeneration, i. 623-4.

Statement by, as to agency of God in
connection with sin, i. 633.

Statements by, on subject of justifica-
tion, ii. 9, 22, 360.

Statement by, as to faith as the instru-
ment of justification, ii. 74.

Statement by, as to the free grace
manifested in justification, ii. 78.

Statement by, as to the obligation of
the law on believers, ii. 88.

Doctrine of, as to good works, ii. 105.

Description by, of the sacraments, ii.
127, 135.

Description by, of baptism, ii. 128,
135.

Doctrine of, as to infant baptism, ii.
147.

Statement by, as to atonement of
Christ, ii. 247, 276, 335.

Doctrine of, as to the connection be-
tween the purchase and the appli-
cation of redemption, ii. 318.

Doctrine of, as to the connection be-
tween reconciliation and all the
blessings of salvation, ii. 321.

View of the, as to the extent of the
atonement, ii. 326-7, 329.

Doctrine of, as to the law of God, ii.
360.

Statement by, as to the operations of
the Spirit on the non-elect, ii. 409.

Statement by, as to the divine grace
in effectual calling, ii. 409.

Statements by, as to the decrees of
God, ii. 421, etc., 449.

Views of, as to perseverance of the
saints, ii. 491, 501.

Statement by, as to the government
established by Christ in the church,
ii. 585.
Whately, ii. 447, 448, 449, 465, 466,

485.
Whitby, ii. 478.
Will —

Erroneous views of the doctrines of
grace first originated in connection
with the question of the freedom of
the human, i. 181.

Statement by Westminster Confession
as to liberty of the, i. .324.

Connection between doctrine of de-
pravity and that of free, i. 344.

View of Westminster Confession on
the bondage of the, i. 344-5.

Will—

Teaching of Scripture as to bondage
of the, i. 345.

The doctrine of the, i. 568, etc.

Views of the Reformers on the subject
of the, i. 570, etc., 575.

Doctrine of the Council of Trent as to
the freedom of the, i. 571, etc., 575,
etc.

Doctrine of the Westminster Confes-
sion as to the freedom of the, i. 572,
576; ii. 414.

Views of Calvin on the freedom of the,
i. 574.

Statement by Bellarmine as to the
freedom of the, i. 577.

The, before and after the fall, i. 577,
etc., 582, etc.

Fore-ordination and the, i. 579, etc.

Philosophical necessity and the, i. 583,
etc.

The bondage of the, i. 586, etc.

Scriptural view of the bondage of the,
i. 587, etc.

Objections to the doctrine of the bon-
dage of the, i. 588, etc.

Argument against the doctrine of the
bondage of the, from the commands
and exhortations addressed to men,
i. 590, etc.

Argument against the doctrine of the
bondage of the, from man's respon-
sibility, i. 596, etc.

State of the question in the argument
against the bondage of the, drawn
from man's responsibility, i. 599,
etc.

Distinction between natural and moral
inability in connection with the doc-
trine of the bondage of the, i. 600,
etc.

Insufficiency of the distinction between
natural and moral inability to ex-
plain the whole difficulty connected
with the doctrine of the bondage of
the, i. 602, etc.

General considerations bearing on the
explanation of the difficulty con-
nected with the doctrine of the bon-
dage of the, i. 606, etc.

Special considerations tending to ex-
plain the difficulty connected with
the doctrine of the bondage of the,
i. 608, etc.

Man's responsibility for his inability
of, i. 610, etc.

The, in regeneration, i. 613, etc.

Doctrine of the Council of Trent as to
the co-operation of the, in regenera-
tion, i. 615.

Doctrine of the Reformers as to the

614

INDEX.

Will—

passivity of the, in regeneration, i.
616, etc., 620.

Synergistic controversy as to the, in
regeneration, i. 618, etc.

Renovation of the, the great work in
regeneration, i. 621; ii. 411.

Doctrine of the Reformers as to the,
after regeneration, i. 623, etc.

Divine grace in effectual calling and
regeneration not inconsistent with
the nature of the human, ii. 414,
etc., 458.

Distinctions as to the, of God in con-
nection with the question of pre-
destination, ii. 451, etc.

Arminian views as to the, of God in
connection with the question of pre-
destination, ii. 454, etc.
Witnesses for the Truth —

Notice of, during the middle ages, i.
439, etc., 449, 450, etc.

Witnesses for the Truth —

Views of some Protestants as to a
succession of, i. 452, etc.
WiTsius, ii. 352.
Works —

Merit of good, ii. 101, etc.

Doctrines of Papists and Protestants
as to good, ii. 101, etc.

Doctrine of the merit of good, invented
by schoolmen, ii. 103, etc.

Nature of good, ii. 104, etc.

Scripture statements as to good, ii.
107, etc.

Statement by Bellarmine as to the
trust to be placed in good, ii. 109.

Views of Papists as to, of supereroga-
tion, ii. 110.

Zanchius, ii. 159.

END or VOL. II.

MURRAY AND Ginn, EDiNBUROn,
rniNTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONEKY OFFICE.

0?(S'

T. mid T. Claries Publications.

J%ist published, in Two Volumes, demy 8vo, pi-ice 21s.,

COMMENTARY, EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL, ON THE
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

By the Rev. Paton Gloag, D.D., Minister of Blantyre.

' Dr. Gloag's aim has been to supply a good exegetical commentary, and in this he has
thoroughly succeeded. . . . We cannot be expected in all points to accept his conclusions,
but we must do justice to the cai-e and thoughtfulness with which they have been foiTned,
and the ability by which they are supported. . . . To the careful student of the Acts the
book will be a most important help.' — English Indtpendtnt.

'His expositions are generally sound and judicious. His work will greatly assist
ministers in studying this most interesting book of Scripture with a view to its exposition
from the pulpit. We cordially recommend it to tliem.' — Evangelical Witness.

' This commentary is a model ; we coiild not name any wi'iter, certainly not any
exegetical writer, who gives his meaning with so little effort. It is extremely interesting
to read ; quite devoid of mannerism or affectation, simple, strong, and to the point. We
know of no commentary on the Acts which we could so confidently recommend to a
minister proposing to lecture through that book.' — Preshytenan.

Just published, Fifth Edition, in Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s.,

THE TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE,

VIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WHOLE SEKIES OF THE DIVINE
DISPENSATIONS.

By Principal Fairbairn.

' One of the most sober, profound, and thorough treatises which we possess on a subject
of great importance in its bearing on Christian doctrine.' — Archdeacon Denison's
Church and /State Review.

' I now say, no Biblical student should be without Professor Fairbairn's " Typology." '
— Dr. S. Lee, in his ^Events and Times of the Visio7is of Daniel.^

' The elaborate scope of Dr. Fairbairn's work can only be fairly estimated by a close
personal examination of it, which it fairly merits both for its subject's sake, and its own.
It has had the repeated revision of the writer, and his friends, and may be taken as an
authoritative treatise.' — Literary Churchman.

Just published, Third Edition, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,

THE SINLESS NESS OF JESUS:

AN EVIDENCE FOE CHRISTIANITY.

By Dr. C. Ullmann.

'We welcome it in English as one of the most beautiful productions of Germany, as
not only readable for an English public, but as possessing, along with not a few defects,
many distinguished excellencies. . . . We warmly recommend this beautiful work as
eminently fitted to diffuse, among those who peruse it, a higher appreciation of the sin-
lessness and moral eminence of Christ. The work has been blessed already ; and may
have its use also to an English public' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.

In Three Volumes, royal 8vo, price 36s.,

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

By Philip Schaff, D.D.,

Author of 'The History of the Apostolic Church.'

From the Birth of Christ to Gregory the Great, A.D. 1 — 600.

'We can heartily commend this work, as learned, scholar-like, and thorough.
There_ is throughout a breadth of view, a calmness of spirit, an occasional beauty of
reflection, and above all a religiousness of tone, which prove that the writer has not lost
his vigour in mere minuteness ; nor has his heart become cold or dull through what may
have been found to be a soul-hardening study.' — Freeman.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In royal 8vo, price 18«.,

DICTIONARY AND GONCORDANCE

OF THE NAMES OF PEKSONS AND PLACES, AND OF SOME OF THE MORE REMAKKABLl
TERMS WHICH OCCUR IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

Compiled by William Henderson, M.D.

'"We believe that this is the first thoroughly complete work of its kind— we mean, that
it is the first to combine the office of a IDictionary of Names and Terms with that of
a Concordance of all places where those words occur. Dr. Henderson has done his

work with much care; and altogether the book is well planned and well executed.'

Literary Churchman.

'We warmly welcome this volume. The lack of such a work has been widely felt.
. . . We tender Dr. Henderson our hearty thanks for this most satisfactory result of his
devout and learned labours. So far as we have examined, his Concordance is as correct
as it is complete. Heartily commending this volume, we may add— what is of no small
consequence in a book of reference — that it is well printed in clear type on good paper.'
— Record.

In demy ?)V0, price 9s.,

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF FRIEDRIGH WILHELM KRUMMACHER.

EDITED BY HIS DAUGHTER^ AND

Translated by Rev. M. G. Easton, M.A.

'Dr. Krummacher of Potsdam, so well known by his "Elisha," and " Elijah," and
" David," died on the 10th of December last. Among his papers was found an autobio-
graphy extending down to the year 1848. This autobiography, with a portrait and
various additions, bringing it down to the day of his death, has now been published, and
we are sure that all who know anything of its subject — and who does not? — will eagerly
secure the book, and not lay it down till they have finished it.' — Bihliotheca Sacra.

New Edition, in crown Svo, price 6s.,

THE METAPHYSICS OF ETHIG8.

By Emmanuel Kant.

Translated by J. W. SEMPLE, Advocate, with

Preface by H. CALDERWOOD, D.D., Professor of Moral Philosophy,

University of Edinburgh.

' A translation of Kant into intelligible English may be supposed to be as difficult as a
translation of Carlyle into Ciceronian Latin. But Mr. Semple's translation has been
accepted by scholars as a real success. Some real knowledge of Kant is indispensable in
order to comprehension of the learned thought of our time, and because the study of Kant
is, on the whole, the best preliminary discipline for independent study of philosophy pro-
per, as distinguished from mere science.' — Contemporary Review.

' All metaphysicians, writers and students of moral philosophy and political economy,
will welcome this new edition of one of the best works of the famous philosopher of
Konigsberg.' — New York Observer.

In 8t>o, price 10s. Gd.,

COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIAN8.

By Professor Eadie.

' A full and elaborate commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Dr. Eadie has had
no common task before him, but ho has done the work remarkably well.' — Contemporary
Review.

o . t

im2

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. limited

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Works"

See other formats